providers, i thought it was when to be too expensive. sure enough, it has cost hundreds of billions of dollars. we cannot always control what you're trying to do, but it does not mean you should not try to do the right thing and try to do it as inexpensively as possible. [applause] and now what i know for me will be the highlight of the evening. i want to introduce our featured guest speaker. [applause] [booing] .

>> he was governor of the state of vermont and a fine job. he continued to practice medicine the entire time he was a state legislator and lieutenant governor. he is dedicated to his profession, which is public service and medical care. he served three terms as governor of vermont and under his leadership, he got through a lot of health care coverage where all children and all pregnant women in the state were covered. [applause]

and the balanced the state's budget. -- he balanced the state's budget. five years ago today, he ran for the president of the united states. he ran primarily on platform of health-care that was affordable and accessible to all americans. now we have, tonight, we are honored to have a real fighter for the people, he is a grass- roots leader, he has worked his adult life for the reform of our health-care system, he is a great guy, a terrific person, and we're honored to have him with this, gov. howard dean.

[cheering and booing] >> thank you. the last time i was and run a crowd this big, it was me doing the screening and now it is you doing the screening. i appreciate that. ainge is going to say a short few words -- all i am going to do is say a few short words. he has done a terrific job laying out his thoughts on health care. how about a round of applause for him. he knows his stuff.

the reason i believe we need health care reform in this country is that the cost of health care is 70% more expensive in this country than it is in any other country. this country spends 70 -- 17% of the gross national product on health care. i'm sorry, but i can't even hear the governor and i'm sitting next to him. there are hundreds of people in this gymnasium who cannot hear because of a handful of people. these folks are not from the eighth district. they really don't belong here. i'm going to ask them to leave. [we won't pay for murder]

[chanting we won't pay for murder] [chanting we won't pay for murder]

[cheering and booing] >> apparently most people can hear me because my staff -- most people can't hear me because my staff person could not even here -- he is an abortion- rights activists. all he does is try to disrupt meetings. he announced he was coming here for the purpose of disrupting this meeting. that is why i am asking him to leave. we have other purposes for this meeting. please leave. [unintelligible]

>> i'm willing -- relax. >> if you are so inclined, let me suggest this -- you would have to abide by this. rather than being escorted out, you can have the option of having the first question to say whatever you want. but then it would be restricted. we need to hear from other people. you have your choice -- otherwise you really need to neat -- you need to leave because we need to move forward.

[chanting "we won't pay for murder."] >> howard dean is a baby killer. >> [chanting "get him out."] >> howard dean is a baby killer. >> i know you think your special, but there are hundreds of people. governor dean, if you would, please.

>> i am going to be extremely brief, because i would like to hear from you, not that i haven't already. there are three problems we have to fix. regardless of whether you are conservative, liberal, democrat or republican, i think you agree we have to fix them. one is that health insurance is 70% more expensive in this country than it is in the three most expensive other countries. that is harming businesses and families. second, there are zero large number of people in this country that have no health insurance. -- second, there are large numbers of people in this country that have no health insurance. i don't know anybody who thinks that is okay. one day i think republicans and democrats agree about is that we

need some kind of health reform and ought to cover everybody in some way. 3, the way we pay for health care in this country leads us to do a lot of things that are not necessary. there is an enormous amount of stuff that we do to people at all ages from oldest to the youngest that we do because people like me get paid because we do them. in many systems of health care around the world, they have a different kind of payment system which leaves that country to develop a well as model instead of an illness model, which is what we have in this country. [applause] -- a wellness model instead of an illness model. i thing most people agree with that. we would rather pay to keep people healthy rather than

paying as soon as they get sick. we ought to be -- we have an awful lot of people who ought to have health insurance, but some lot of us who do not have it through no fault of their own. i am going to say to more things -- first why i believe so strongly in this. when i was practicing medicine, this is 20 years ago, a woman who was about 35 years old came to me who was pretty healthy and i had known for a little while. she said she was increasingly thursday, losing weight, and having to urinate a lot. it turned out that she had diabetes. this was in february. by may, her insurance company discontinued her insurance. i don't think that's right and someone needs to do something about that. [applause]

last thing on going to say, which will undoubtedly set me out the way i came in with that i support president obama's health-care plan, including the public auction. [cheering and booing] gm has told you all the reasons why -- jim @ told you all the reasons why. -- jim has told you all the reasons why. now i will sit down and we will answer all questions that you have. >> now the fun begins. gail is my office manager schedule, so you will hear her voice when you call our office. we have 3 boxes here.

we're going to pick a first question and then announce the second so that people can make their way to the microphone to save time. the question says -- the first question is -- my brother lived in france for 10 years -- srah scott -- sarah scott -- why don't you read it or you can paraphrase this yourself.

let me just read the second names of the second person can come up. the second person is brian larson. >> my brother lived in france for 10 years. his doctor bills and medical prescriptions were paid for the government system. he did not have to wait in line to see a doctor. why in the u.s. are people afraid of such a system? [applause] >> changes hard. -- change is hard. the reason the europeans have the system they have is because their system was destroyed during world war two and put back together by the government. the system in britain was put in by one of the most conservative

prime minister in history, winston churchill. the reason was that when the system was destroyed, they commandeered all hospitals and put them together to get people through the war, and they did. they started from a different place. we started from an employer- based system, because in our country, we were only attacked twice. our system was not destroyed. the reason our system is the way it is today is because a lot of employers were prevented from giving employees wage increases during world war two because of inflation and because of wage and price controls. they made it up to their employees by giving them more benefits. we evolved an employer-based system in this country. the europeans and -- involved a government-run system because of two different circumstances. it's hard to change. much of this debate is about change. the one thing any doctor can

tell you about change is that you never make real changes until the pain of staying the same exceeds the fear of change. i think the pain of staying the same has exceeded the fear of change. [applause] what a -- >> what a thoughtful and articulate response. many people are not fully familiar with this. >>jessica is helping with the microphones. go ahead. >> i am a pharmacist by training. do you support medication 30 management services that allow pharmacists to work with health care teams, the justin's, nurses, to manage care of people

with chronic illness? >> yes. >> [laughter] >> gov dean responded in a comprehensive way. >> one of the deals here is that there are a lot of people to practice medicine in this country besides physicians. if we're going to keep costs down, you have used pharmacists and nurses practitioners for more care. that make a big deal and reduce costs. [applause] >> mr. e. williams. then, whoever gets your first -- alexandra broadman.

>> we have alexandra. >> thank you for doing this tonight. >>do you think a system involvig cops is an acceptable compromise? >> i personally don't -- a system involving co-ops. >> there is nothing wrong with health care, operatives, many states allow them and stems that -- some states have them, but they are not a substitute for a public auction. -- for a public option. it's very difficult to get enough people to put together themselves. you need about 500,000 people to

be competitive with the private insurance industry and you need a lot of start up money. that is why it is dealt that if the government was able to kickstart it with money that would be repaid, but -- so that it could be repaid the g7 to be paid for itself, but the government has expertise running medicare. health-care cooperatives don't and while i would encourage people who want them to put them together, that is fine, the problem is there is no real profit incentive for anyone to invest a substantial amount of capital in said -- in setting it up. they will not get repaid in the form of dividends or profits. it is not comparable, but it's not a bad thing.

>we need a microphone there -- we didn't know where you were. there is a microphone. >> i would like to know are you and your family willing to go on the same health plan? also, have you ever for any of your family members -- have you lived on socialized medicine? trust me, it ain't working. [applause]

>> as the crowd calms down i will respond. yes and no. i live -- i am assured by the federal employees health benefits plan. it is a full family plan, so i pay a substantial amount every month, i think over $6,000 a year. it is a good plan and want to preserve it for all federal employees and retirees. [reading names] do you want to get the microphone?

this woman has been very animated. >> it's the same exact question -- are you willing to take the plan. you did not answer it. >> the answer is yes. >> >> [reading names]

>> hello? i have a very simple question and that might be something everyone can agree on. why don't we think -- what we take the 23 trillion dollars of the bailout [unintelligible] >> that's not right. you are not -- what are you doing? you told me you were and you're not. please go back to your seat. madam, please go back to your seat. the problem is that if other people can do that, i ask for a name, they come up and purport to be that person, then a lot of people going to do that.

it's going to get completely out of order. we are not going to allow that. i don't know what happened. let's try it dennis sawyer. >> i'm right here. my question was answered when you're going through your myths and fax. what is the reform for medicare part d going to look like? we have a situation privatized health insurance is more in control of determining what kind of medications older patients can take. how is this: to change with this reform?

>> i will share with you my answer standing of the deal made at the white house with the pharmaceutical industry. in return for the pharmaceutical industry reducing the doughnut hole gap so that seniors would save about $1,700 a year to purchase drugs at less cost, in return for that, the government would not repeal the provision that prohibits the federal government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies on behalf of medicare beneficiaries in the same way we did she with the veterans administration. i would not have made that deal personally. but i was not part of that. i don't know all the particulars. in the veterans administration, sometimes you will pay one third

to less than half for most brand-name drugs because they can negotiate. if we were able to negotiate using the net -- using the medicare beneficiary population, we could get the price of drugs down very substantially, but we are not allowed to do that, nor are we allowed to buy drugs from canada. at this time, the only thing i'm aware of is that the doughnut hole gap would be narrowed. governor dean, do you have anything to add to that? >> [reading names]

>> it's a similar question to what everyone else has asked. >> it's one of those things. it's quite simple. knowing full well that somehow both congress and the executive and other branches of government will find their way to get themselves out of this government run plan, the question is, if it is so good for all of us, can't you be on it with us? >> i am. i don't know what you're talking about. since there have been a lot of

people ask this, let me try to address this once more -- i'm going to try to address it and thank you requesting. 85% of people, approximately, are not going to see any change in their health insurance coverage. the reason for that -- the reason for that is that most plants have adequate coverage, particularly in northern virginia. i have a private insurance coverage under blue cross blue shield. i pay the highest auction for my family coverage. it's about 500,000 -- it's about $500 amount approximately. it's about $6,000 a year. the federal government matches its at 72%.

it's the same that applies to several million federal employees in any agency of the federal government. your federal employee, you get federal employee health benefits. that is the plan that i have and i think almost all members of congress do as well. it falls under the same plan as the executive branch. >> the next question is from maureen mitchell. >> i have two questions about the public plan, which i am in favor of. could you explain how we could insure almost everyone without

the public plan? is there a way to ensure everyone without public plan? >> there are two countries -- sort of 2 1/2, germany -- the netherlands and switzerland have a universal health care plan without a public plan. in order to do that, they treat the insurance industry as a regulated utility. they tell them what they can charge, how much they earn and what their ceo salaries are. i have to say, with all this about the public plan, i've been tempted to ask congress to put in the swiss system and see how far and how fast the insurance industry would embrace the public auction instead of turning it into a public utility. [applause]

>> [reading names] >> right here. >> there's a lot of people. >>please answer this. you ducked the hard question. you said earlier that medicare is being run by experts.

who are these people? this is a program that is 39 trillion dollars in the red. these are experts? who are these experts? i asked you to answer, not howard dean. >> all those in favor of getting rid of medicare, raise your hand? all those in favor of getting rid of medicare raise your hand. >> answer the question. >> medicare is not in the red because we don't use general

funds. it is true that we will run out money sooner than social security because the cost is going up. i don't know anyone over the age of 65 who wants to give up their medicare and the reality is medicare costs have gone up at a much slower rate than private insurance company costs and medicare use is 3% of the trust fund money of administrative costs whereas in a private system, it is about 30%. medicare is operating at much less cost. we need to figure out a way to pay for it. in the long run. this is one of the waste we intend to do that.

the experts -- there are federal employees to expend much if not all their adult lives running medicare. the fact is they do a very good job. they are in baltimore, md., and i am proud that work for the federal government. [reading names] would you please go sit down.

>> there is $200 million in saving with tort reform. >> its not fair when you don't have a microphone. please share your thoughts. >> there is to under million dollars with tort reform and no one loses but the lawyers. why have we not even considered that in the discussion? tell the american people that. >> this is the answer from

doctor and the politician. here is why tort reform is not in the bill. when you go to pass an enormous bill like that, the mores that the pin, the more enemies you make. the reason that tort reform is not in the bill, is the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else they're taking on and that is the plain and simple truth. [booing] that is the trees. what is a reasonable possibility -- that is the truth. what is a reasonable possibility, those who get injured by doctors and hospitals ought to get something reasonable, right? second, what we do not want is a lot of lawsuits against doctors there for a loss -- that are frivolous and creating an atmosphere or because doctors to do more stuff they need to make sure does not it brought in from

the jury. what i am allowed to say is not authorized by anyone. i have tried this out and from doctors and lawyers and either like it. here is what i think we ought to do -- it is not going to happen in this bill. this bill has enough enemies. there are fair number in this room. the more you take on more enemies you make and we don't need any more right now. here is a reasonable solution -- and i might add that if we did put tort reform in the bill, we would not get one extra vote in the house or the senate. however, here is what ought to happen that is readable and fair to injured patients and physicians and hospitals. you cannot take away the rights of someone to a jury trial. you cannot. it's unconstitutional and not fair. what ought to happen -- this is going to be a hot one --

research is going to be great in reforming tort. comparative effectiveness research will study what works and what doesn't and will create a national standard of practice. a national standard of practice is an absolute defense in a court of law. if you have done the things you are supposed to have done, you cannot be sued and in reasonable judge will say that. here is what i think ought to happen. if you have an action that you're going to bring against a medical practitioner, and ought to go to arbitration tree you cannot make arbitration binding, because if you do you deny a jury trial. if the patient is unsatisfied and believes they have not been treated fairly, the very thing to do is have a trial and allow arbitration to be submitted as evidence.

>> that is a very honest answer. before we go further -- where is mr. [-- like i want to apologize for doubting who you were. second, it did very good question. it was a very appropriate question. it got an honest answer. that's the answer. politics is the art of compromise. it would have generated a great deal of opposition, not just for lawyers but other sectors. there is one other which does not seem important, but in the scheme of things it matters. that is the bill would have had to go to the judiciary committee as well.

in the judiciary committee, it would have politicized that all the more because that committee is perhaps the most partisan of all committees. the judiciary committee never would have reported out tort reform. that is just reality. we both gave you an honest answer. thank you for the question, it was a very good question. [applause] >> maureen mitchell. you leap -- we already asked maureen mitchell. [reading names]

>> i am very concerned about the quality of the debate, not just the screening of misrepresentation, but the fact that the press does not seem to want to cover policy. [applause] they want to cover gossip and i'm very disappointed. i would like all of you in the press to start covering the policy. but i would also like to hear my beloved democratic party also arguing some basic things. first, i don't understand why philosophically you do not say that the problem of health care cannot be solved by free enterprise. we are now -- a school that white men -- a school by kids went to in virginia, many kids did not go here if the school were private. they would just not have an education. the same is true for health

care. the government has to be involved if we're going to have universal health care. i don't see why we don't start with that principle. the other. i wish to address in detail is -- the other things you should address in detail is that people say all got programs are bad. some are good and some are bad. what are want to know is why specifically this program is going to be a relatively good one compared to options. i would like to know how will operate, what are the arguments in offering it this way as opposed others. thank you very much. >> i don't fully agree with the first thing you said. i think that it is true, as the state of massachusetts is finding out, which has gone on

an incredibly noble experiment entirely in the private sector and in that the uninsured rate down to 2.5%. the problem is they're going broke. i would argue that you do need a public auction to make it work. -- the public option to make it work. i think it is true that in the health insurance business, for- profit means taking more money out of the health-insurance system and putting it into shareholders' equity, which they're entitled to, but it's less money spent on health care. this will be a switch -- my own folks will not like this, but the opposition might. the truth is there are some parts of the health-care system that do better for profit. one of them is the drug industry. i know that i am shopping every democrat to say that, but hear me out. here is why i'm going to say this. i know the drug industry gets beat up a lot 3 i don't think those television ads are helpful

at all. this is an industry that consumes roughly 10% of the entire budget of healthcare. it's also an industry -- it makes such big profits anymore, but the use to and people resent it. this industry reduces your time in the hospital and reduces cost. that's a fact, whether you like it or not. a lot of people on my side of the aisle eight drug industry, but that's a fact. the affected is, i just happened to go on a tour this morning of two biological plants in maryland. the first makes a product that enables new born premature babies to live with a previously died because of a respiratory virus and it saves billions of dollars. that is a for-profit company. the second one is very likely to have the first real improvement in the tree of sickle cell anemia and the last 40 years which would save hundreds of millions of dollars in hospitalization.

i am not one that believes in profit in health care is always bad. i do think it is unhelpful in the health insurance industry, but i believe -- that is why i like about possible. is a choice. if you want to be in a single payer system, it's a choice. if you like your insurance, you get to make that choice. that is why i think barack obama's is the best health care bill. [cheering and booing] [reading names] >> this is the undecided box. >> i am medical student and member of the medical student association. i went to medical school because i want to serve patients

not argue with private insurers and fight to provide care. [applause] i applaud your support for a robust public auction, but there is an alternative. there is representative wiener's amendment that offers the single payer option. i wonder if he would support that? [applause] >> i do not know. it is going to depend on what it takes to get the best bill that we can out of the house. i'm sorry i cannot be more specific than that, but i'm going to work with the leadership to get the best bill that we can. i used to be a sponsor -- a used to be a co-sponsor of the conyers bill, but now that we

have one that the white house has endorsed, inclination is to support that bill. bob from alexandria. this is from the anti box. we're only going to have time for a few more questions. >> the want to check my id? just because i sit over there does not always agree with everything everyone says of there. but what to take the time for to thank you for doing this, it has been a tough crowd. >> thank you. >> but i also want to point out that it is part of your job and it is what we send you to washington to do. >> that's right. >> i appreciate it. >> i am honored to represent this area. >> as one of your constituents,

i wish you would have held this closer to my house, but understanding the way things are, i will ask my question. >> most of my town hall meetings have been in alexandria and arlington and i tried to be fair to the rest of my constituents as well. >> congress deals with medicare costs by cutting fees to physicians and cannot a rope -- cannot otherwise control the cost of the program. the question about the deficit of medicare, if you require the governor -- governments use the same accounting methods that require public companies to use for their pension system, it would be way in the red. why should i trust congress and the government to run a national health-care plan and be able to control costs?

[applause] >> there are clearly going to be people who do not trust that the government is going to be able to operate the public plan option. but don't need to enroll in the public plan. the fact is the public plan is going to be paid for. that is the way it is set up so that the revenues that come and will pay for its expenditures. it will be self-supporting. people like you who do not trust the government to do that, i would not think you would want

to enroll in the public plan. there is a gentleman here who has made it a point of emphasizing of naming one government program that has been well run. the fact is, when i have an opportunity to visit in other countries, unless it is the first world, europe or canada, other countries have relatively corrupt governments. they run the gamut, but the fact is we have the largest civil service system that is the least corruptible. that's not to say that there hasn't been corruption. let me give you an example of

government run programs -- the military is a government program. [applause] over the last eight years, when there was a decided effort to privatize military operations -- c'mon we don't want that kind of stuff. when we tried to privatize, we found there is many government contractors in iraq as the were military and civilian employees and cost us a lot more and most of the abuses were committed by contractors. [applause] i work with the contractor's three closely because we have all of them in northern virginia, but the reality is that firms like black water and halliburton and so on rep off

the government. -- ripped off the government. when soldiers come home, i don't know any family -- please -- i don't know any family who has a wounded warrior who does not want them going through the veterans administration. the va is not perfect, but because we put a lot of money and have good people, it provides good medical care for our veterans and that is a socialized medicine system. i am not suggesting that government can't pull off any kind of perfection, but i am suggesting that the need is for there to be balanced and i am suggesting there needs to be more competition as governor dean has so well articulated.

we are overweighted in terms of dependency on the insurance companies for making the most crucial life-and-death decisions. i think we need to intervene and rectify that balance to provide more affordable, accessible, and in some cases, higher-quality healthcare. [reading names] i think this will be the last question. we don't have much time and people probably made plans to get out of here by 9:00. let's have a question from somebody opposed. people opposed are the most anxious -- you are not?

if you put a card in here, you will have the opportunity. you don't look like peggy carter. >> people tell the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >> the question on the card, if you would. >> when does reform become more important than cooperation? when does reform itself become more important than cooperation? >> i don't understand the question. when this reform become more important and cooperation? i don't know what that refers to.

>> you work for the annova health system? >> i have done lots of care for people who are disadvantaged and i'm now a kindergarten teacher, so i will be nice. >> you don't have to be. >> friends of ours who live in france have a medical card and there is a chip on it with all other medical information from birth to whatever age they are. that scares me, frankly, because i said to them do you want the government knowing all of your business from cradle to grave? i believe our country was founded on independence and i think we can all agree, whether democrat or republican, it is

important we have privacy between our doctor and our health records and it should not be shared with the government. [applause] if you could tell me under what moral jurisdiction the constitution allows you to do that? >> let me it thank you all of you on both sides. i think everybody behaved pretty well. this is a spirited american tradition and i appreciated and thank you very, very much. the interesting thing about this is one of the biggest problems in medicine was just raised in the last question. it's like a psychiatrist patient asking the tough one on the way out the door so nobody can deal with it. this is a huge issue and it's more than about the health celt -- more than about the health care bill. you don't want the government

knowing your health information, you're not crazy about the insurance or banks knowing about your information which gets sent to credit card companies and that's why you get all this junk mail. this is a bigger issue than health care and health care is a big issue. here is what folks are struggling with, and i don't think this one is cooked. we want to have records are complete and patients cared for better if the doctor taking care of them knows that it is complete. the president put in a lot of money in the stimulus package to advance medical records so that if you get sick in some place that's a thousand miles away from your home, if you have the chip, you can carry records with you and they connote your situation's. if you have been in a terrible car accident and can tell the money thing, the doctor has the information and they know if you are on medication and that is

important. what guards are there against privacy? the guards are a bill passed six or eight years ago that has something to do with health insurance firm privacy. the problem is is not enough. there is no way it's enough. this is a private sector problem as well as a government problem. just the other day, some guy hacked into credit card companies and sold 130 million credit-card numbers. those are numbers now and some crux hands. there is no really good answer to this because in this information age, there is going to be and there already is more information available than most of us in my generation who did not grow up on facebook would ever be comfortable having in other people's hands. on the other hand, the more information health care

professionals have, the better it is. this is an open question because i don't think anyone knows the right answer. how are we going to build a wall between the government, in particular, but also corporate america and ourselves so that our private information stays private but there are people who need to know or private information and one of them is the health care professional taking care of you. this is a great question for unfortunately, there is no perfect answer. i'm sorry to leave on that kind of a note. let me thank you again. i have enjoyed this. [applause] >> let me conclude by thanking all of you. this is important. as with every major, transformative struggle that our economy has gone through, whether such security of the

1930's, whether it was the civil-rights struggle of the 1960's, this should be difficult because it is important and it affects everyone and we are certainly not going to get right unless we hear from all sides. i thank you all for coming, thank you for participating. it was helpful and it was really helpful to meet. thank you. .

>> it would be helpful if we had another plan to compare it with. you're absolutely right. >> thank you.

thank you so much. >> thank you. thank you for coming to this. >> [unintelligible] >> thank you, sir. >> thank you for coming out here and doing as. i know it was difficult with this crowd. cracks rehab 45 minutes to the public. -- >> we have 45 minutes to the public. there is a characterization of us. i am led to have not done that. >> thank you. thank you, buddy. it is nice to see you.

>> hang in there. >> i want to know about the basic standard plans. everybody is going to be required to offer the same thing. >> it is a basic package that the private insurers add to that.

thank you. it is good to see you again.

>> monday morning, we will be live from the va hospital center in arlington where we will talk with the top medical administrators, beginning with james colt. we'll also talk with dr. john garrett. tuesday, we will speak with robin norman, senior vice president and chief financial officer and david crutchfield. on wednesday, we will speak with dr. j.j. chevera, of emergency medicine. will also dispute with the head of the ico and respiratory care department and the chief nursing officer. tomorrow, three doctors from britannia hospital center in arlington va. tell personal stories about treating patients. the lovers -- there will offer their views on health care legislation.

>> the charges anywhere from $1,800 to $2,000. the payment is usually a medicare reimbursement for a mastectomy and is usually between $650.700 $50. >> we also hit -- is usually between usually650.700 $50. -- is usually between $650 and $750. >> is there anything i would say, patients should not be trying to make their diagnoses on the internet. >> join us tomorrow and see all three doctors. they will share their personal stories and their views on health care legislation. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern on

c-span. >> as the debate over health care continues, c-span's healthcare hub is a resource. watch events, including town hall meetings and share your thoughts on the issue with your own citizen video, including video from any town halls to have gone to paired and there's more at c-span.org/healthcare. >> this is c-span, public affairs program courtesy of america's cable companies. coming up as a discussion on immigration. later, a look at the presidential election in afghanistan. >> we have a look now at immigration as a wedge issue. you will hear from ej dion on

how conservatives use immigration to increase voter turnout among republicans. this is one hour 25 minutes. >> thank you all for being here. i think you're the only people who are not on vacation this week. i want to give you a little bit of background to this background, what the purpose of it is. i will introduce the speakers and then we will get started. a few weeks ago, my friend published a very well received paper entitled "the coming end of the cultural wars." the paper is premised on the emerging demographic trend that there will be more progressive alcott on the number of heart -- progressive out, on the

number of heart issues. i am going to be playing oakbrook, even though i am to much -- playing oprah, even though i am much shorter and not at it isch. -- not rich. when in 2006, millions who marched in cities across the united states in protest to the house bill. that same year, the senate passed a bill with 23 republicans supporting it that would have legalized most of the 12 million who were living here without status. in 2007, the senate failed to pass a less generous bill. last year, we saw those candidates battle this issue,

but interestingly enough so much in english language press has been in spanish language press. there was a high latino turnout in 2008 in states like nevada, new mexico, and others. this is an issue that latinas care are a lot about. now speaker pelosi and senator reid are repeatedly saying that they want to engage and moved and passed the issue of immigration reform. the question is is the country ready? our leaders ready? we want to look at this and how republicans engaged this issue successfully if they ever want to hold office again. let me introduce our speakers and then we'll get into a short powerpoint presentation.

frank served as the executive director of america's form. he has been at the center of every immigration ballot for the last 25 years. then we have e.j. dionne who really needs no introduction. he is a senior fellow at brookings and a professor at georgetown. he is the author, editor, and co-editor of many books. then we have on the navarro -- we have an navarro -- we have ana navarro. she was most recently national co-chair of john mccain's hispanic advisory council. she was a frequent speaker for john mccain on issues related to latinos. she also played a key role as a strategist in several local and state races in florida we have

read his europe -- we have ruy tashira. -- ruy teixeira. we have a rock star panel. we will ask some questions, get into a bit of debate and discussion, and then we will open it up to you for questions. take it away. >> thank you, andy. the term cultural wars as applied to u.s. politics goes back to 1991 when it was popularized. the argument was that, no and going forward, politics in the

united states would be polarized between warring cultural camps around issues like guns, abortion, gays, gender issues and so on. that would be the fulcrum of politics. this did not turn out to be such a crazy idea as things developed. as we know, cultural wars were very important in the early clinton administration. it was a huge part of the impeachment in the late 1990's. it figured in george w. bush's a victory in 2000 and 2004. it was by and large quite present and quite a focus of debate about our politics. we wondered if we ever would get out of it. things have changed since 2004. if you look at the elections of 2006 and particularly 2008, we

have the historic victory of barack obama and a campaign in which cultural issues did not seem to play much of a role at all. the nomination of sarah palin probably hurt more than helped mccain's ticket. things do seem to have changed quite a bit in the last several years in terms of these cultural war issues. why is that? one reason is that some issues have come to the floor like iraq and iran and the economy. but is that all there is to it? there is the argument that is deeper than issues. has to do with the shifting demographics of the united

states which are basically reducing the level of conservative cultural views among voters and it is reducing the salience of them to politics, even where conservative views remain. let's take a look at some of the changes that are taking place and that are moving us in this direction. the first and most important -- the first and most important demographic change is the rise of the millennium generation, those between -- those born between 1998 and 2000. they supported gay marriage. they take race and gender equality as a given. they are very tolerant of religious diversity. they're open and talkative immigration into the united states. they're also interested in fighting politics in cases of these hot topic button issues. -- these hot-button topic

issues. in 2008, there were about 48 million and 64 million in 200012 as a projection. that is a lot of culturally progressive eligible voters. this next slide shows a little bit more detail about those changes. as you can see from the table, about 39% of eligible voters in 2020 were members of the millennium generation. there will be about 36% of the people that will turn out to vote. there will be 103 million millennial adults. that is a balloon of eligible voters. -- that is a boat load of eligible voters. let's take a look at their

diversity. this is why they're so culturally progressive. this slide basically tells you that right now millennial adults are pretty diverse compared to previous generations. about 60% are non-hispanics whites, 14% black, 5% asian. as more and more millennial become adults, they will be more and more diverse. those have -- but the time they are all in the electorate, it will actually be 56% non- hispanics whites. it is important to note that, not only are the villanelles progressive in general on cultural issues, but, if you compare each one of these ethnic groups to their older counterparts, they are much more progressive. what levels are much more progressive than older generations of white voters. hispanic levels are more progressive than older hispanic voters. in fact, [unintelligible]

if you breakdown white voters and you look at white working class and white college graduate millennial, it is strength -- is striking how progressive white working-class millennial are compared to older generations of white working-class voters. obama actually achieve a high level of support among white working-class millennial in that election. there was a big trend in the direction of progressives between 2004 and 2008 to be benefited from. but this implies is very important. as we move forward, the white working-class will continue to be relatively conservative in general. there will become gradually and

inevitably more so as to replace older white working-class folks in the voting population that is a very important change. is not just that we're going to have more progressive working white class -- working -- white working-class voters. this is one of my favorite charts. this is the change in the shares of working-class white college graduates and minority voters between 1988 and 2008. it shows that in the 20-year span, 15 percent sought -- there was a 15 percentage point decline in the representation of white working-class voters. there has been an actual increase in white college graduates who are voters and are much more aggressive -- and more aggressivprogress of.

if you look at specific states, there's a lovely table in the report that shows you that, for every state that we have data who voted in 1988 and 2008, the change of representation of voters of white working-class, white college-educated, and minorities, in pennsylvania, 25 percentage point decline in white working-class voters. you want to understand why pennsylvania was such a tough nut for pennsylvania to crack. it does do a lot right there about what happened. u.s. right to appeal to an electorate that -- he was trying to appeal to an electorate that

does not exist. is this likely to continue in the future, the changes that were embodied in the previous chart? yes, indeed. this shows where we are going in terms of race predictions as far as 2015. about 66% of the population -- as far as 20150. there will be a doubling of hispanics from 20% to 30% of the population this will be an ongoing set of changes as far as the composition of the electorate. we will also see the decline of the working class. the white population is

declining and there is continued educational upgrading among whites. white college graduates will continue to increase. there will be more hispanics, more white college graduates, much fewer white working-class voters. the other democrat of it -- the demographics that are important is single and college-educated women. they are generally pretty progressive on cultural issues and more progressive than their uneducated and married counterparts. college educated women have more than tripled from 8% to 20

percent since the mid-1970s. professionals are hugely progressive on social issues. there will hit about a fifth. religious diversity is also important. by the year 2016, roughly, or a little later, we will no longer be a white christian nation. secular or not officially adults are increasing dramatically. they have gone up from about 5% to 40% it will be about 20% of adults by the year 2020. if you take the data out far enough, it would appear that by the year it 24, a little bit more than about one-third of the population will be quite christian. another third of that will be conservative white christian. that does shoot a lot right there about the demographic basis.

we are looking down the road where the situation will only be 12% or 13% of the population. let's turn to the issue of immigration for a second. when you look of these rising demographics and compare them to the declining demographics, they tend to be by and large more progressive and more open about immigration and more supportive of immigration. that is one reason why you had the dog that did not impart situation in the last several elections. [unintelligible]

they attempted to use immigration as it would issue. frank will tell you more about it. it did not seem to work very well. it was the dog that did not bark. the climate is when to change over the long term in terms of making immigration less of a hot-button issue. the economic crisis is making people more surly about immigrants in our country to create problems, who take jobs, who use benefits, blob blob ah,, blah. this shows the data that asked people thinking about immigrants currently living in the u.s. illegally, you favor or oppose providing a way for them to be

considered with dual citizenship. 58% to 38% were in favor. it was well supported by the public. if you look at april 2009 data, it has not gone down. it has gone up. you had a 63%-34% in favor. the feelings of immigrants to not seem to have become more negative. let's take a look at how these demographics are working out on some of this stuff. my proposition is that, going forward, we will see more positive views of immigrants and a better climate for immigration reform. this is data from the progress of studies forum poll.

-- this is dead from the progress of studies forum poll -- this is data from the progressive studies forum p oll. this is pretty consistent the other results and similar questions. the millennial generation is play such a role in changing the landscape of cultural use in our country. this also shows the general divided immigration. it was asked, do you support giving illegal immigrants the

right to live here legally if they had a new requirement? 73% of millennial or fourth and only 42% of seniors. -- setting 3% of millennials were for its and only 42% of seniors. >> i agree 100%. >> that was >> . >> there are some tough issues. first of all, what is remarkable about this issue is that it is a relatively new issue that confronts the political class. a few years ago, immigration was

and is a culturally charged wedge issue that is wanted turnout conservative-based voters, that is going to split democrats and make them look like there were entering into a minority, and it would persuade swing voters who are upset about immigration. that conventional wisdom, in my view, was greatly exaggerated and yet is still embraced by too many in both parties as still probably true. the evidence for why i think it is not true is the analyses that ruy referred to. we look at the 2006 and 2008 elections. we look at tossup races where immigration was a factor. in most of these races, the republican attacked the democrats for being soft, for being for amnesty, for wanting to give benefits to illegal, for being soft on illegal

immigration. and almost all of the races, the democrat won in these tossup races. the theory that this issue was onto mobilize base voters is probably true because the one place where you see evidence that a hard-line works is in some republican primaries. for example, and probably the most in -- the most notorious race was you had kathy difference against d.c. graf, a minuteman, and randy graff famously said, if someone in my view cannot win in this district, we cannot win anywhere. he turned to be for a pet -- he turned out to be prophetic. in 2008, they tried it again. did not get as much attention. we looked at 20 races that could

be labeled a tossup. in 20 of those races, the democrat won. for all of the washington power as a wedge issue that was when to make it hard for democrats, it does not -- it just has not happened. there is the notion that it is ok to go on this issue because latinos do not care that much and that they really do not count. that has been turned on its head. the most underreported stories in my view is how bush and rome had a wonderful strategy to win hispanic voters. amongst banished-dominant

hispanic voters, bush lost to carry 52-48. many of the new voters that turned up in 2004 voted for george bush. we talked about sharing the values and it was a lifetime corp chip. he was a beautiful candidate for socially conservative latino immigrants. in 2008, it is estimated that obama beat mccain 28-25. that is a huge swing. it was a key factor for seven states going from red to blue. now the question is how can democrats used as either as a wedge issue in elections or,

more importantly from my point of view, use it as a tactic to get republicans to work with them on comprehensive immigration reform which is the defining and threshold issue for latino immigrants. we will get more into swing for voters, but the conventional wisdom has been wrong. the wedge strategy has backfired and latino voters are pretty worked up about it. >> first, i am really happy to be here. i very much admire the work that cap does. he predicted almost perfectly what happened down to the smallest demographic group. if i have one small

disagreement -- i was influenced by his earlier work and i grew up in a place called follower, massachusetts. [unintelligible] that perhaps colors my analysis, but we can talk about that if you wish. i am here partly as a friendly the center. -- from the desc friendly dissenter. i told frank before that when he offered his analysis of the 2006 and 2008 elections, i would say that it is true that when you have a republican president with a 38% approval, it is difficult to make immigration work as an

issue for republicans. the verdict of the jury is out on how this would play on terrain that is less favorable to the democrats than 2006 and 2008 were. it splits both parties and scrambles the usual ideological lines. i believe there is no clear majority in the country on this. roughly one-third of americans strongly favor providing a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants. another third is strongly opposed. and then there is an ambivalent middle that knows the status quo is unsustainable and is sympathetic in principle to a comprehensive solution but is also upset about the government's failure to control illegal immigration. in the obama administration, it

has some words of its own. it is entirely true that the president won overwhelmingly with support from latino voters. they were important in helping him carrying new mexico, colorado, and nevada. [unintelligible] latinos were important there. latino leaders insist that the president keep his promise to fix immigration reform. i think the president's messages "yes we can, but not quite yet." we all know he has a lot on his plate right now. but i think he understands this ambivalence and the difficulty of this. he said, we want to move this process. he wants to build confidence.

ultimately, he said, i do not have control over the legislative calendar. this is a president who wisely knows that achieving comprehensive immigration reform will have to be bipartisan. i say this not because i believe bipartisan solutions have aristotelian perfection, but because of the splits in the two parties. you're never going to assemble a majority without a bipartisan solution. i want to close with two quick points. part of the political problem is that the issue plays out differently in presidential elections than embraces about control for congress. take states with large hispanic populations that are suing states, ariz., nevada, colorado,

new mexico. those were all states where obama either carried for, in harrison -- either carried or, in arizona, he did better considering that it was kerry's state. in only four of those districts was the hispanic population more than 18%. in 19 of those districts, it was under 3%. these were races in which republicans were tempted to use it or it used and immigration. in 15 districts where the democratic incumbent received support, they had hispanic

populations below 10% 3 you have the politics playing out differently. -- population is below 10%. you have the politics played out differently. the fact that you had a large hispanic vote in certain areas makes it easier to support comprehensive immigration reform. ambivalence, with immigration, you can be aware of polling for you can make polls say everything you want about immigration. there was a greenberg roster: 2007 that showed 52% of proving reform for illegal immigrants. some folks gave yes answers to both of those questions.

that is ambivalence. 50% wanted or favored public school for kindergarten through high school for children who are here illegally only 35% favored interest to state colleges where tuitions are subsidized for children of illegal immigrants. 64% said that illegal immigrants should be able to use hospitals and emergency rooms and only 25% said that they should be on medicaid or medicare. i think that the success will be in winning over the ambivalent middles. the core argument for reform must be that the presence of so many illegal migrants without any enforceable rights undermine the rights of all of us. the messages that the path to

citizenship is the way of guaranteeing that all residents of our country be able to assume their responsibilities as americans. moving us in that direction is not about doing favors for illegal immigrants. it is about strengthening the american community. i believe that the president is buying himself time to try to make that case. thank you. [applause] >> ana, do you want to share some thoughts? >> i came in here this morning completely ready to agree that we were coming into the end of the cultural wars. but there was a story about a nice gentleman named bob from macon, georgia who, in 62 years of life, never felt enough emotion about anything, that even the vietnam war, to go protest or participate in a town hall. much to his wives shop, he showed up at a town hall on

health care reform this week. the very soft-spoken. this congressman that he wanted him to oppose health care reform. we have not traditionally looked at health care reform as one of the wedge issues. we like to think of immigration and health care -- emigration and the marriage -- and the gay marriage, but i would argue that we are in the middle of a cultural war. i would say that the democrats part in a cultural war with themselves. in florida, you have state-wide protests going on against the senior senator of florida, who could not be more moderate and middle of the road. if you do not want to call it a war, then call it a battle. there's something going on that has ignited the american public.

on immigration, i think you are right. i think immigration has not been a wage issue. it has not been a wedge issue in the presidential primaries. the reason is that -- and to their credit -- i know there has not been enough time to say something slightly positive about president bush or karl rove. the reason why it was not a wedge issue before was that there was no fertile ground because bush came from texas where that was a nonstarter. there were wedge issues that did influence the presidential elections and local elections. in 2008, it was not a fertile issue.

there was no fertile ground for this issue. it played in the primaries. immigration probably cost mitt romney the florida primary, which in turn was a pivotal moment in the primary election in the u.s.. how could you have immigration as a wedge issue when you have john mccain as your republican nominee? if it was an issue at all, it was in the hispanic press over who was more believable on immigration reform and he was more believable on the promises that they were going to deliver? i told john mccain so many times during the election, trying to convicted -- trying to convince him to no avail, that latinos wanted to hear a timeline. the immigration activists wanted to know was it going to be

simultaneous, would it be enforcement forces, would be legalization first, would it be one year? john mccain did not want to commit to a time line. he felt it would be irresponsible. he thought that it would be impossible to control the legislative calendar. obama committed to a time line. he committed to doing it within the first year. guess what, folks. just a couple of weeks ago, in the shroud of darkness in the middle of summer, in mexico city, he announced that it is not one to happen in the first year. i could not help but think what would have happened if john mccain had committed to a timeline, had won the election, and had not committed to that. i hope immigration disappears completely as a wedge issue.

i hope that immigration reform is approved. it is not approved, will it become a wedge issue? will it make a comeback? would be that you promised and did not deliver? it will be a good issue again for republicans if that would be the case. and the open this up by saying what the republicans need to do if they ever again want to win office? what do they need to do on immigration reform? the question is with democrats in the white house, democrats in the senate, and democrats in the house, what the democrats need to do to hold on to that latino vote that put them in power? that is my ankle. >> well done, ana. [applause] frank, your reaction.

what do you think? but >> said that she is absolutely right. democrats squander -- >> i think that she is absolutely right. i do not think that latino voters in 2010 will raise or embraced a party that [unintelligible] in a low turnout midterms where the party is directly loses, it will be a big deal. if democrats have not delivered on immigration reform, it could have valid ramifications. i know that democratic operatives are concerned about it. if obama does not move to get it done and things that 2011 is a better time to do it, i think our experience with george w.

bush says that the longer you wait, the harder it gets, not the other way around. if you imagine a 2012 presidential run in which barack obama's campaign promise in spanish says "this time i mean my promise," who knows that those who turned up in 2008 will turn up again? i do not have any mistrust about obama's sincerity. i wonder if blue dogs and conservative democrats are going to rise to the occasion because this does not play well in their district. i think he also points the way. democrats have to realize that the cultural wars are receding and they were hired not to be republicansl ig light, but to he

solutions. i kept looking to see where the closet nativists and racist word. but they were p.o.ed pragmatists. there is an increase in support for a path to citizenship because they want this new game to deliver. democrats will have to embrace of that with an argument that should be about taxes. we're of when to make sure that people get legal, pay their fair share, both employers and workers, and it will help reduce the deficit. how is that for a centers argument? we are going to require people to get legal and to pay taxes and raise billions of dollars for the coffers so that everyone is paying their fair share.

i would love to hear that argument in the swing areas. that is the democratic party that has to emerge if they're really going to take advantage of the historic possibility. >> if they find their voice, what is the republican response to that? if you have them many into it and requiring people to come forward and enforce our borders and have a ramification system that works, how do republicans respond? >> i think republicans are waiting for this white house and this congress to lead. if and when they do so, i think the best thing republicans could do is come up with an agreement and get rid of the issue once and for all. get it off the table so we do not have this constant fight that we have to be defending

with latinos and we could go back to what ronald reagan believed. latinos are republicans, they just don't know it yet. [laughter] then we can focus on all the other issues. if they cannot get it done, it cannot be done, it is going to be a hard case to blame it on republicans when so much control rests in the hands of democrats i know that the republican ads would be, no se pudo. i think democrats need to lead. if they do not, i think they are very vulnerable. i want to remind democrats who are holding hands with latino leaders that, a couple of years ago, those latino and immigrant leaders were camped out at john mccain's office.

they believed obama was a better sell. that is for the immigration issue if latinos are still swing voters, they can turn on a dime. they need to be courted and they need to be shown some meat, some the liberaldeliverables. they could do the same thing to barack obama if they feel that he is not delivering promises. it is a gauntlet. it is a fine line to have to walk. >> did frank persuade you? >> i am persuaded about what he said about the last two campaigns. i think there are arguments that have not been made that could be made in terms of everyone assuming their responsibilities as citizens that have a broader

appeal than other kinds of arguments. i agree with all that. in terms of the hispanic votes, bush got the hispanic vote for the republicans around 44%. there was an enormous achievement. one of the splits was among protestants and catholics. the evangelicals hispanics voted very strongly republican gr. what happened as a backlash was that they lost a lot of ground oamong those evangelicals. the republicans do not need to carry the latino vote. if picking get 40% to 45%, they can win a lot of state

elections. but there are two problems. politically, as long as the republican party's loudest voices are identified as of restriction tesist, the message they get is that the republican party is on to be hostile to them. what happened nationally is what happened to california when gov. pete wilson pushed irreverent -- the referendum to transfer benefits to immigrants. but he pushed the latino vote into the democratic camp. the problem is -- i just want to give one plug to a report from brookings on the media.

ichiro a than does the analysis of media coverage. -- she did on analysis of media coverage. it is not just a matter of having the guts and courage. it is that immigration reform, depending on how you do it, splits the constituencies that are for it. the opponents of a bill word united clear because it is very easy to get to no. on the other hand, supporters of immigration reform or not completely happy with their own bill. there were split between those who favored large guest worker programs and others on the liberal plan said that yes

workers undermine the rights of other americans. we need to move to citizenship. the constituencies who were in favor of reform, every concession you made to the restrictionist side undercut enthusiasm for the bill. this is a very hard political and legislative task. i am sure that frank has solve all the problems and will tell us how. it is not simply a matter of debts. it is a matter of coming up. it takes a lot of political policy intelligence to put this thing together. so, frank, tell us how to solve this problem. [laughter] >> i think i led one of five progressive groups that was for the bill.

i think we are lucky that chuck schumer is leading the way. they produced a bill that was just bad enough to answer every major constituency. he is going to be able to come up with a bill that is just good enough to keep their but at the table. i think people are humbled by the consequences of not getting df. i note advocates around the country that feel we should hold up for something better find that the status quo was an atmosphere where emigrants live under such seas and tremendous fear that there is a kind of commitment to reform that i do not think we saw a couple of years ago. there is good to be a business- labor split on the issue. business will said they want more workers. labor will say that to many workers will undermine the american workers. but i hope we get to that debate.

then you have people on both sides who want reform to figure out whether there's a commission who can better manage all or part of the flow or do reforms of the current programs. i can see a deal on that. i think the bigger concern is whether the forces of no are strong enough. i watched the health care reform debate. this is 2007 replayed. make it look like you're speaking for the majority and tried to intimidate democrats into backing off and republicans who want to make a deal. i get the playbook. but this is the challenge. are democrats going to be susceptible to the southern strategy of old or to the new democratic majority going forward? i think the democratic suggest that they should lean into this stuff, showing little heart and a little backbone. a lot of folks want results. that is what they really want.

the idea that loud voices on the far right is going to intimidate people in the middle i find unbelievable. i think he has a better message, framed better, but, going forward, obama and the democrats, if they stood up and said, we're going to make sure people are legal, make sure that people are following the law, and stop illegal immigration, we're going to do this reform that is true to our ideas they will find surprising support. i say this because we have done deep polling in districts, conservative districts, that it is framed properly, i think democrats will find republicans willing to work with them and find bipartisan majorities and get this done by spring of next year. >> ok. >> optimism. >> ruy, what do you think?

what is your sense? >> my analysis is more about the long-term shifts in the train then what strategies should be pursued. . >> what is honestly very important, for the republicans, it is really in their interest to take this issue off the table. the long-term demographic sense to be on the short end of the

stick is a very bad idea. a lot of the smart people in the republican party now this is true. getting this issue off of the table, and certainly they do not want to be identified so closely with the forces within their own party. detritus transcend that as much as possible. -- they try to transcend that. it is in their political self- interest. that does not mean that for a lot of individual members of the republican party, white districts with low hispanic concentrations, they are going to see their interests differently. that is going to create some problems. we know those forces are going to speak very loudly as that issue comes to the forefront. i think, basically, this kind of debate it falls apart, and is identified with the forces of the republican party.

i think it hurts to them again. i do not think it hurts them more than it hurts the democrats. i think we will see a replay of how this played with the hispanics a couple years ago. i think it is difficult. again, the way the terrain is shifting and the political calculus of the big sections of the republican party, i do think the basis is there for some sort of solution. there is a basis and that does not mean it will happen. it is hard to make an assessment at this point. i think there is a good shot. >> i think there's a lot more to the republican party than those voices. i think we have to be smart and responsible. you brought up the sotomayor or debate. -- sotomayor debate. we saw that being defined as the

voices of "no" in the republican party. it was look at who they are and who they represent. -- let's look at her they are. you are flaming the -- fanning the flames. this person who was no longer a congressman from the boonies in colorado who got defeated soundly in the primary, and yet he is the one that is put out there in the mainstream media. it is his voice that is defining the debate on sotomayor. why? because he's going to say incendiary things to make entertaining press which leads to more press and more stories. in the meantime, every republican member of the judiciary member was making very good points, holding a cordial,

civil debate. in fact, the person that knocked around her the most was the newly minted democrat spector. and yet, republicans took a beating with hispanics on this issue. >> because most republicans voted against her in the and. >> it does anyone remember the things that were set against her? does anyone remember martinez's speed ? he chose to make that his last official duty in the senate. there was a department of speech of going back to the old times when supreme court nominees were judged on qualifications and intellect. it was not an entrenched decision by both parties pretty goes beyond hispanic. it goes above and beyond

sotomayor. it goes back to the time that, no longer exists. how much press did martine z'speaks to get? it was a very powerful speech. i was proud of him for giving it. i am sad we're losing his voice in the republican party. i hope that at some point we again have another republican senator. i think it is that important. >> personally, i was surprised how many republicans voted against her. i thought it was in the political and policy interests to vote for her. i think she is, relatively speaking, one of the more conservative or moderate choices obama could have made. your case could be much stronger if more of your friends actually cast their vote for her. i wanted to raise a question with you. i think it is a problem republicans have.

when we did our study, there were some questions about this fascinating split in the republican party. the moderate to liberal republicans, or a small number, were in favor for a path to citizenship by about two to one, more or less. what was fascinating was self identified conservative republicans were very bad the split. some of that depended on whether you were a business oriented conservative or a cultural conservative. what we found was this extraordinary difference between talk radio listeners and non talk radio listeners. you're opposed a path to citizenship, or both words in different questions, it was54-41 no. you did not get a lot of

affirmation from talk radio, it was 62-24 yes. there is a very interesting division in the republican party. another thing we found from a journalism study is that during that debate, conservative media, or restriction as a media, lou dobbs in particular, give this far more attention than any of the mainstream media or liberal outlets. i think that that went to the enthusiasm issue that the conservatives were really mobilize and the other side was not. i do think there is a genuine division in the republican party. it goes even deeper than the split among democrats. what is your sense of how the republicans a deal with that in the future? >> i think we have to come to an

agreement. there has to be an agreement that is not going to make everyone happy, but it is not going to make everyone on happy. i am -- you know, i really regret senator kennedy is not going to be there for the conveyor. with his prowess and his authority, he will not be there. i do not trust chuck's role in the way frank does for a conciliatory role. i can be persuaded and i hope to be. i think it, like it or not, we're going to have to come to an agreement. we need to get this issue off the table. >> is an mccain? -- and is it mccain? apology is to chuck.

does mccain play that role? clearly, i agree with you. kennedy's absence is going to be felt in a lot of different areas. i do see this as such a difficult issue for republicans. bush made it work for a bit. even at the height of his popularity, he could not make this work in side the party. >> i am not clear who is going to leave this is the issue comes up in the senate. -- who is going to lead this in the senate. the congressmen from my district in south florida has become a leading voice in the house. in the senate, i have a hard time thinking of the mccain and chuck playing in the same sandbox. that being said, i think john mccain cares tremendously about

this issue. i think there are others. i think nancy gramm is important. i would not be surprised to see nancy take this on. we know the relationship between the mccain and them. it might end up on someone else's lap. >> i'm going to ask one more question of the panel and then we'll open it up to the audience. this is a policy question great we talked a lot about politics. it is complicated because of their a least -- there are at least four parts to reform. you need it to deal with those without status, said the deal with the family's stock in a backlog -- families stuck in a backlog, and a credible way to

have a flow to reduce or stop illegal immigration. let's talk about legalization and the future of flow. can you two imagine an agreement with democrats and republicans on those two issues? what would it look like? >> go ahead, frank. >> just to give us an answer. >> look. i think a broad generalization program -- program, if it is framed right, simply, and people have to earn their permanent residency in and work towards citizenship i think that will be wildly popular after passes. it will be wildly unpopular among the wing nuts. we will create some ambivalence. i think it is combined with

enforcement measures that work, framed as a way to solve this problem, i think democrats have to lead with that and i think smart republicans will go with that. i think is going to be a combination of reforms of existing programs, some sort of commission to analyze label rigid labor market conditions -- labor market conditions that will make recommendations to congress. they will retain authority as they must. right now, they right -- revisit these numbers only every 20 years. the labor market moves more dynamically than that. it was constructed commission that makes recommendations -- i think a well constructed commission that makes recommendations to have a fast track authority to make decisions, i suspect that will be too much for the political -- political market to bear. i think you have to revisit those issues and learn by doing. right now we have an ossified

process and a position of the issues. as an advocate, it can go up and it can go downgrade i did we have to be more realistic about how to combine labour market needs, which impacts, and its effect on reducing illegal emigration. i think if we have and blending of those three elements, it will come up with a process that can change dynamically as needed to result in control, protection for american workers, and a reliable source for truly needed workers. >> anna, what is your reaction? >> i agree on what with what frank has said. there are red flag issues that need to be taken care of before the bigger bill is formated. for republicans, the temporary worker issue is one of those red flag issues.

we just saw, for example, jeb bush, a visible republican work with a democrat lead a commission of republicans, democrats, academics, business people, pragmatists' many of them to come up with recommendations and the framework for a plan. they did this in a matter of weeks under the council of foreign relations. i think it can happen, but you have to start from a place of wanting to make it happen. that is the key. you cannot let this be coopted and taken hostage -- co-op'd. failure is not an option. it must succeed. >> during the immigration debate in 2007, when senators

said interesting things. it is much easier to sell this at a moment when vulnerable people in the economy, native workers, are feeling more secure or are seeing as a do things on their behalf. the irony is if we ever got universal health coverage, reducing economic insecurity on the part of a lot of people, there be a lot of openness, or less hostility, when the immigration issue comes up. that has been true throughout our history. americans are always pragmatic about immigration after tough fights. during times of rising prosperity, not surprisingly, people are more open to flows. when they are feeling economically pressed, they tend to worry more. unfortunately, from frank and

anna's point of view, this does not bode well. we are not in a time of economic security. you cannot even college good news. the numbers of immigrants have gone down considerably. there may be a reverse flow because of the economic downturn. what we need to solve the immigration problem is an economic crack. it has probably reduced global emissions. >> feelings towards immigration, but what this allows the obama administration to do is to frame this because it is really about the 12 million who are already here. ari going to deport them or make them at taxpayers and work towards citizenship? >> are we going to deport them?

we need to make sure that we do not reproduce the problem and end up with 12 million more. if that argument is persuasive that we're trying to clean up the mess that has been caused by an attention to this, make sure they work towards citizenship, make sure employers follow the law, make sure it does not happen again. i think the down economy and the fact that illegal immigration is that net zero makes the debate focused on a point where americans are more pragmatic and ambivalent. i think they're becoming more -- a majority is becoming consolidated around the idea. we're not going to support them, so let's make them taxpayers and citizens. >> why don't we open this up to ask questions. if you would not mind introducing yourself. >> and a congressional correspondent with the hispanic outlook. it -- i am the congressional correspondent.

a comment and a couple of questions. the comment is, i think you see a similar problem in health care reform bills that is all about how much government credit some people want government to do more, others want them to do less. it is interesting to see how it looks. economic nationalists, those seem to be the split between the two parties. you cannot explain kennedy and bush on the same page. my question, you seem to assume that this millennial groups want change. being from the hip degeneration of the 1960's from berkeley, it is quite amazing to see babies

become the biggest yuppies that -- it to see the hippies become yuppies. in this very room, cisneros talked about the biggest issue now for latinos integration and focusing on that. it is a trustee -- it is interesting that the majority of mormons in nevada and utah will be in latinos. that is another conservative group. this group is going to change and you act like the hispanic or non-white hispanic is a block. it is not now and cannot see that it will be that way later on. do you really think it is not going to change? >> do we get more conservative

as we get older? >> it depends on the type of issue you are looking at. that is more true on certain views about the role of government. it tends not to be true much it all about social issues. social issues are quite stick as people get older. if the start out liberal or progressive, that seems to stick with them over time. i would not disparage the baby boomers so much. there's not much evidence that they have changed their views over time on social issues. if you look at the early part of the baby boom, 1946-1954, this is the second and most progressive group after the millennial generation. i think that is not likely to change that much, actually.

in terms of hispanics, i think certainly the margin for progressives could become compressed on some of these issues. you might see the situation where some conservatizing of young hispanics as they get older. i think you look at the profile of a hispanic alleles and compare them to older hispanics, they're much more aggressive on cultural issues. if you look at their party identification it leans heavily, heavily toward the democrats. that's not to say 40 or 50 years from now that things cannot change. based on the changing views of the parties and the set of issues they're most concerned about, that profile tends to make them lean pretty heavily towards a progressive direction. therefore, the most reasonable explanation -- expectation for

the next 10 years is that it will continue in my view. >> i am glad you're here. two things. on the latinos, after bush did so well among latinos, they said they would mind -- might likely be more like italians in being more ambivalent. but i agree with your premise that there is some real upswing in that latino vote. they have a lot of different types of people. cubans are different from south americans who are different from porter rican -- a peuerto -- puerto ricans. republicans need to do something to change this trajectory otherwise, i think it is a solid, though not overwhelming

were paralyzing majority for democrats. on the alleles, i think this new generation is different. i think they are the replacement generation for the new deal organization. they have now voted democratic in three consecutive elections. a 54% for kerry, i think it was 68% for obama. i think for a lot of reasons this is a progressive generation. the fact that they came of age during the bush presidency which was perceived as feeling much as the younger reagan generation grew up during the carter years and he was viewed as a failure. i think, again if obama does a reasonable job, not even a spectacular job, their progress of tilt is pretty strong.

i think it will take quite a lock to poll the millennial is out. they're talking about the 2020 election. anyone between the ages of 30 and 40 right now who is president should run for president in 2020 is that could be a heck of a year. >> there is a bubble with interesting data on these issues. >> another question from the gentleman on the end. >> hi my name is jiff norman. i retired but i am a volunteer ford d.c. for democracy and local democratic parties. -- a volunteer for a d.c. for democracy. can anyone explain while -- why prince william county has

become a fighting ground for opposition for immigrants? maybe that kind of analysis would apply to other parts of the country or other groups of people who are similar. for people here who are not from the washington area, it is an outer suburb. i think it is fair to say that housing is a little cheaper there than it is in washington d.c. and other suburbs. you probably get a lot of working-class white people who have moved out there. that is my question. >> it was, but not so much anymore. >> there's a group called 9500 liberty. oh, fantastic. they're the experts. you should talk to them. you have a fast-growing expert

-- excerpt, they're not particularly well organized, and you have a demagogue who was to lift his profile for statewide office who sees as a blaming the newcomers as a new politics. he wins a county resolution, drives many of the latino immigrants out of the county, and when he tested his statewide emissions he realized his ambitions were too high. i think it is the of arch they're talking about in california in 1994. now, california is a blue state for generations because pete wilson's name. i think you're seeing been arch

in a shorter time frame. -- i think you're seeing the arch. it looks like a blind to be a great political strategy but it has turned out not to be. now have said, let's not talk about it. there was devastation to the county's reputation and to the immigrants who were under siege there for many years. >> in the country, there was a fight out in gaithersburg. the research is very interesting. there are two groups in which hostility or mistrust of emigrants is especially high. one is from people who live in areas where there are no immigrants and it comes from a fear of the "other." the other is where there has been a large, sudden influx of immigrants were people tend to

worry about what is happening about the place they grew up in. you can't have them as xenophobes. -- you cannot have them as xenophobes. for a lot of people, that is a hard thing to deal with. it has happened in earlier generations with other immigrant groups. i think that is a part of it. the rapid influx of new immigrants can have the effect of creating an explosive political situation. >> the importance of leadership. i'm not concerned about people changing in a committee quickly, when someone says up -- steps up and says it is their fall, that is so explosive on this issue. -- says it is there fault. from pete wilson to levee to

stuart in prince william, these people are going to go down on the wrong side of history because they thought the short lead political gain was worth it. >> it just shows that you might think on some days, people in who are kind of hostile or questionable, then there's a rapid influx that inflames people. the interesting thing is that once the hispanic presence gets established, they become more integrated and people know this is reality and adapt to it. i think it is fascinating. standing in madrid communities are less hostile -- standing emigrant communities are less hostile. >> i think anybody who goes

through, who is not from miami, and who goes to miami international airport to use their very hostile. when they leave the airport and the start eating the cuban food and get a taste for the music and the culture, they change their mind. but i do apologize for anyone who has gone through miami international airport. >> we only have time for a few more questions. the gentleman in the back? >> hello. i wanted to get the panel's view is this year's calendar proved too short for obama to get immigration law passed this year. 2010 would likely be a shorter calendar given that it is a calendar year. i do not know if anyone has been paying attention to the census coverage. it seems they're going to be

targeting a lot of immigrants and sending messages. the democrats, or in certain districts that mean the democratic, there's going to be an influx of undocumented immigrants in those places. because of their presence, they're going to have the added advantage of the electoral college and representation. perhaps there might be another supreme court pick because there are many liberal justices that might be retiring. in addition to other issues, this might create a much more polarized environment where it emigration is a wedge issue now, might become more of one. if you do not have something by june of 2010, it could be that it has to wait another two years. i wanted to get the panel's

opinion on what the chance is up for immigration law to pass in 2010 and it has not been pursued in either chamber so far. >> a good question. a short time frame in 2010, census, supreme court nominations, other distracting issues. >> oh, man. the window of opportunity for every major reform becomes a more controversial the closer to mid term. we probably do have a window of opportunity to may or june at the latest. i think that is more than enough time. obviously, health care is going to dominate fall. the question of whether or not energy reform can really happen or not, given its prospects in the senate, remains to be seen. i'm quite confident that if we have napolitano being the point person we need her to be, which

she has not been to date, and they take the lead working with others. there is good stuff in the house. i think we can tee it up in the way that we would not have to have a long debate in the house or the senate trade i think there's enough time. i am not worried about the calendar. -- i think there's enough time. this debate has happened twice in the senate. there grizzled veterans of battle. -- they are grizzled veterans of battle. in the house, they have barely talked about it. they only have sound bites they came up with for elections. they are not comfortable with it. the canada findings we have are that if you are not comfortable with this, a lean into it.

that is the hardest cases think we're going to have to make with democrats in the house. it is in their political interest to lean on this issue, from a as a pragmatic solution to a problem that frustrates the voters, from it as good for the voters and the community frame it as good. need it democrats to lead. some of them are going to have a pass, but we needed a good number of democrats who are uncomfortable with this issue to lean into it to happen before june of next year. >> i think it is going to be hard. some of this depends on the political environment after health care. >> we're not starting from scratch. we have been debating in formulating plans in agreements for years, if not decades. we know where the minefields are. if we have learned the lessons

and applied the lessons that we have learned, this should not be as hard, frankly, as it has been in the past. i go back to saying that i think this rests in the hands of latinos. it was an election issue in latino markets, hispanic media for the last election. it stays that way, the latino community has got to force this issue no matter what distraction is on the agenda. no matter how many hispanics get appointed, they cannot get distracted. have to maintain focus and force this issue in the constituency. >> i think this is to be continued. i am afraid we're out of time. thank you, to our panel. [applause]

[inaudible] >> monday, a discussion on recent health-care town hall meetings hallgerald connolly. we will hear from the president and ceo james cole and dr. garrett. also, in discussion on recovery efforts four years after

hurricane katrina with the head of the louisiana recovery authority. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. as washington and the nation continues to focus on health care, today we will talk about dealing with the h-1n1 with the director for the center of disease control on "newsmakers." >> tamara, three doctors from virginia hospital center tel personal stories about treating stories -- tomorrow, three doctors. we will hear from them on the cost of the operations. >> the payment is usually a medicare reimbursement for a mastectomy is usually between

$65--750. >> of the top of issues surrounding medical care. >> when i have a symptom, they want to go to the internet to figure out what is wrong with them. without a medical background and experience that we have a, they will always get it wrong. they usually think they have some horrible disease. if there's anything i would say it is that patients should not be trying to diagnose themselves on the internet. >> join us tomorrow and watch all three doctors from the va hospital center from arlington, va., share their personal stories and views on health care legislation. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. here is a look for the election in afghanistan. so far hamid karzai has a slight lead.

the final results will not be released until early september. this last about one hour and 25 minutes. >> i welcome you to our auditorium. welcome to those of you joining us on the c-span and other networks. welcome to those of you joining us on our web site. here is a courtesy check that cell phones have been turned off and we remind our internet yours that questions can be submitted to wreck the program addressing emails to speaker@heritage.org. our program will be posted later today on our web site for future reference as well. hosting our discussion is jim phillips, who is a senior fellow for middle eastern affairs. he has written extensively about

afghanistan, middle eastern security issues, international terrorism since coming to heritage in 1979. please join me in welcoming my colleague, jim. , thank you, john. [applause] >> last week, they held their second election. although the official results will not be held -- known until next month, it appears that there may be a need for a runoff between the top two candidates which probably will be president hamid karzai and abdullah abdullah. it is not clear what impact, if any, this will have on the fighting in afghanistan. what is clear is that after the election, the war is likely to intensify as teh taliban other

insurgent groups step up their attempts to finally intimidate the afghan people. as the obama administration carries out its new strategy in afghanistan backed by more u.s. troops, more civilian advisers, and more foreign aid. the purpose of our panel today is threefold. first, we're going to take a look at the current security situation and suggest how a coalition of afghan forces can retake the initiative from the insurgents particularly in the south and eastern parts of the country. second, to assess the elections and with the meat for the future. thirdly, to look at the developments in neighboring back at pakistan -- neighboring pakistan. i would like to introduce our speakers in reverse order. the clean and speaker who i will introduce a first is a senior research fellow for south asia

and the asian studies center at the heritage foundation. since joining us in to dozens 6, she has appeared on major broadcast networks to comment on south asia. -- since joining us in 2006, she has appeared in commented. she cochaired the pakistan policy group and independent groups made up of a handful of experts in 2008. before joining heritage, she was a professional staff member where she handled the south asian portfolio trade from 2001- two dozen 3, she served as a senior adviser in the state department of south asia bureau where she buys them on india- pakistan relations. she served with the cia as a

political analyst on south asia. she is also a political ambassador in the early 1990's. she earned honors from the cia for her analytical work on indo- pakistani relations. speaking just before her will be in someone who has studied afghanistan since the soviet invasion of 1979. his fourth book on afghanistan, "afghanistan the graveyard of empires" will be published next year. he has testified before with house and senate committees and is a frequent visitor to the region. most recently, he was in afghanistan most -- last december.

he served as a talking head on cnn, tbs, fox news, and many other media outlets. his work on afghanistan was recognized by the soviet government which awarded him the titles of "musharraf also fire of history -- boucgouis faslifier of histort." aren't second speaker was the for moline project was the former analyst at the u.s. department of state. he's also a professor emeritus at the university of thillinois. before that, he was a senior fellow at the u.s. institute of peace. he held poll research fellowships -- full pressure

pitch fellowships for iraq and egypt. he was an observer with the democracy and election reserve with the democracy international delegation. our lead off speaker will be lieutenant-general barno. he has worked at the national defense university since april 2006. during his 30 year career, he commanded units of all levels for lieutenant to lieutenant- general. in the course of his career, he has become extremely knowledgeable about the conflict in afghanistan. he has commanded over 20,000 u.s. and coatbridge coalition forces as part of operation enduring freedom for 19 months -- for 19 months from two dozen 3-2005. he was an intricate -- and the tree officer with the army

ranger officer. he holds a degree in the national security studies from georgetown. he is also a graduate of the u.s. army command and general staff college and the u.s. army war college. as director of the southeast asia center, he has traveled widely and has lectured at a variety of civilian and military institutions including harvard, yale, tufts, and a west point. he is a frequent consultant to agencies on counterinsurgency, counter-terrorism, and the changing nature of conflict trade with that, -- conflict. with that, let me turn it over to start off. >> my youngest son just got back from a year in afghanistan with the 101st airborne. that was a much more demanding

experience for our family than having me over there for 19 months. it certainly makes me feel the challenges that are ahead very personally. as denoted reaching as jim noted -- as jim noted, are in the estate and that uncertainty -- we are in a state of uncertainty from the election that took place on the 20th and that we do not yet have a final resolution of the next president will be. that is the context in a sense of our panel today. in some ways, and that is a broader matter for for the uncertainty of afghanistan. i think that is certainly something that concerns all of us that have a deep commitment for our overall policy success

in the region. today i'm going to talk about challenges and opportunities inherent in those challenges as we look at the road ahead over the next several years. we will talk a bit as well about the current context of where we are today. earlier this year, i had the opportunity to testify before the senate and house committees. in each of those testimonies, i noted that in many ways success in afghanistan is a mathematical equation. it is not simple, but it is straightforward. the question might go like this breed success, achieving our policy objectives which are open to discussion, success = leadership plus strategy plus resources . i made a number of observations on what modifications, changes, new directions that we might go in and regards in afghanistan.

people and organizational structures, overall policy approaches, campaign plans to help realize this objectives, and finally billions of dollars required and the key individuals and thousands of military soldiers, sailors, and marines require it to see this through to success. when the striking things i would observe upfront today is that in the last 90 days or so, since the beginning of the administration to be more broad in my outlook, we have seen major changes in both leadership, strategy, and resources. all three of those components have seen a significant change in direction, if you will, from what we had from 6--- six, 12,

18 months ago. earlier this year, we were on the cusp of significant challenges. i think we're moving in a different direction today. that is only because of the dramatic changes that have been put in place in leadership, strategy, and resources. they're now beginning to play out in afghanistan. i spent manhattan-based in afghanistan in january. -- i spent3.5 days in afghanistan. i will go back probably in november for another week or two to provide further insight. it is clear as we look at the dimensions of the challenge their that we are in a critical period of time. many are arguing that the next 12-18 months will decide the outcome of the conflict. i think that that is a fair appraisal of things that have to

change in several dimensions of the next 18 months. but we talk about four challenges -- let me talk about four challenges of the next two years. number one, we collectively, the international community, we have to defeat the taliban in afghanistan and we do not often talk about that. number two, i think we need to collectively deliver unity of effort on the ground in afghanistan. we have talked about that for years, now we have to deliver on that promise. third, we have to collectively restore the trust between the afghan government and their people. that has been fractured over the last 3.5 years. during 2003-2005, there was a

lot of respect and optimism between the people and their emerging government. that is not true today and that has to change. finally, to talk to one birkie vulnerabilities, i think we, the united states, have to look to rebuild popular support for this extraordinarily important and dangerous conflict. we simply cannot allow the population of the united states not to understand the reasons for our efforts in afghanistan. have to be fully informed and fully behind this important enterprise that we have. -- they have to be fully informed. first, the strategy for defeating teh taliban. -- the taliban. we have to understand the strategy. to categorize it in simple terms, their strategy is to run out the clock. run out the clock.

it is worth the ball game, they view themselves as being in the fourth quarter, and on the scoreboard, controlling the ball, and they need to run out the clock on the opposition, being us. that plays to one of our greatest vulnerability is, the ability to stay committed for a long-term conflict. i will talk to that again. their strategy is a deeply rooted in our strategy. many afghans would approach me and ask me a question when i was commander, "you americans are not going to abandon us again are you?" their history is that at the end of the soviet conflict, which afghans believe they won on behalf of the west to defeat the soviet empire, they believe america walked away from afghanistan. there's quite a bit of evidence to support their view of what

occurred in the late 1980's. they are very wary of that of that. we're working against a strategy that our adversary has now that simply says the americans are going to leave. the international community is going to leave. we, the taliban, are going to be here when they leave and you're going to have to deal with us. that is a tremendously powerful a look and a tremendously compelling argument for them to make. we have to think through clearly how we can defeat that strategy. it means essentially winning and investing and enduring with our overall efforts in afghanistan. the second challenge, unity of effort. this one is more prosaic but it is no less important. had we get all these organizations and entities to work together, not simply in combat but also in the

districts, villages, and provinces which is vital. we have to structure a working interagency development, defense approach at the grass-roots level to work together as a team. moreover, as the general's notes in their captors in search -- counterinsurgency guides, the have to be partnered in this effort to lead this effort. there has to be a unified structure down at the grass- roots level. there is little to none of that's it. --of that to date. we need to deliver the goods at the grass-roots level of building a partnership between international security forces, the u.s. military, the nato military command and the

development and policy. that has to work seamlessly at the very basic level in afghanistan. our organizational structure, starting in washington, does not work that way and is not designed to work that way. without that, we're not going to succeed. third is restoring the trust between the afghan people and their government. as i noted, that is really an afghan requirement. that is not something that we can do, the international community can do, only the next president of afghanistan is only going to be able to create that trust. there has been a factor in the last four years there. there is a tremendous gap between the people's expectations, which i saw was so high and optimistic in 2004 versus where they are today. the next president of afghanistan has to take on as a

priority effort to rebuild the trust. the afghan people have no confidence in their government, the rule of law, the ability of their local governments to take care of their needs to meet their expectations. they are very modest. if that cannot occur, no military effort is going to enable us to be successful. we have to assist that objective as one of our priority tasks. finally, clearly we have to rebuild popular support and popular understanding for the war in afghanistan here in the united states and in europe as well. these wars are long, difficult, tough and the course has been very uneven over the last several years. we have now got to crystallize and our allies that we have a clear road ahead.

we have the right commanders and leaders on the ground. we have the right campaign plan being rolled out. we have to execute our strategy and we're going to be sourced at properly to achieve the very important results that we committed years of our blood and treasure to. this is very achievable. in my recent visits to afghanistan and mine years there as a commander, the difficulties we face in afghanistan are not as difficult militarily as what we faced in iraq. i watched that very closely, new all the players involved -- knew all the players. it is not that deadly or desperate today. we are in a better position militarily today, believe it or not. many considered it a hopeless situation four years ago.

it is achievable and worthy of the result, but we have to explain to the american people and our allies, the people that make up their governments across europe, that this effort is achievable and meet critical national-security objectives for all countries involved. the 9/11 attacks occurred many years ago. they receded from popular memory. in some ways, many people have come around to the belief that that simply is not going to happen again. that is a risk that we have gone to be extraordinarily vigilant to prevent from having that realization occur again in the united states. the fight against the taliban is related to that, but now it is also broader than that. the instability in afghanistan, pakistan, that region becoming an unstable part of the world given the nature of the threats that are there now from

terrorists, and stability of their governments, that is an extraordinarily serious national-security threat to the united states and our friends around the world. i'm not sure if we have characterized that as clearly and as comprehensively as we need to make the case to the american people today. . . >> we know what the road ahead needs to look like. we've got the right pieces in place for that road ahead.

now we have to be clear in our objectives to defeat the strategy of the enemy. again, our fourth point there, the narrative to the american people, the resolution of the american people and our allies, that plays right to the taliban strategy. the idea of an exit strategy as our objective as opposed to success is our objective plays into the strategy of the taliban and the fourth quarter. and i think we have to be very, very aware of that and be thoughtful about. that unity of effort in this new enterprise in the leadership is critical. there's reporting today already that it's going to be difficult to surge the civilians required for this. we can't accept those kind of outcomes. we have got to deliver on this now and provide the resources at the grassroots level to create this unity of effort. restoring the trust of this afghan government as the election place out to its final chapter, we have got to work intensively with the next government of afghanistan to help them rebuild the trust and confidence with their population. if they fail at that mission, we fail at the overall enterprise.

and all of our efforts today will be in vain. so that's a critical objective. then finally recasting the narrative and reviewing for the american people and for the population of our allies why we're in afghanistan and what the the potential downsides of failure in afghanistan could look like. i'm not sure we've painted that picture clearly enough. and i think that will help crystallize the outlook of all the populations involved in this difficult fight. to sum up then i think the next 18 months is a critical time in afghanistan. >> i think intensively focus their effort on the requirement to begin to current the enterprise around and put it on a positive footing in the next year and a half. but we've got to provide the popular support, the resource requirements and the clear

understanding of what our objectives and what the deliverable are in the next 18 months to but rest the very tough -- buttress the very tough path we've set our leadership on in afghanistan to help the success. >> thank you, general. marvin? >> i'm going to devote my remarks almost exclusively to the election that took place on august 20th. and look in particulate what we might have expected from a presidential election in afghanistan, what actually happened in that election as i thought and others, and what are the consequences for political stability and reform in afghanistan for the counter surge ensy strategies that -- the counter insurgentssy strategies that the general spoke about this afternoon.

elections can be a legitimate democratic rule but they can also precipitate political instability. strong states can overcome the disruptive effects of bit early-fought campaigns and flaws in the electoral process. for weak states, elections can be a shock to the system. it sets back democratic development. i fear that the latter is the case in afghanistan. it wasn't very difficult to predict what this election was going to bring. did we have any reason to expect that it wouldn't be flawed? it was hard to imagine that afghanistan was going to be in a better place after the election than it had been before the election and the place before the election was not a very comfortable one as it was.

whether there ought to be an election. they said, given the security environment through the certainly the south and the southwest of the country, but elsewhere as well, was it possible to hold a free and fair election. there was also question whether there was adequate preparation for the election, whether the voter education that so many felt was necessary to have a honest election was possible. and then of course with no political parties complicating parties can play a valuable role in monitoring the process. the last presidential election that took place in afghanistan in 2004 did in fact bee stow legit mass -- bestow ledge is massy on hamid karzai. but no one expected the same in

this election. it was very clear in the five years that have passed that he was unlikely to duplicate the 55% that he had secured in the 2004 election. his popularity from every indication had badly eroded. and logic dictated that he probably could not then avoid a runoff election. everyone anticipated as i was suggesting that there would be irregularities. but it was almost certain as a result of that that the opposition candidates would be likely to declare the outcome as unacceptable, as fraudulent. they were unlikely to defer as they had in 2004 when they had objections to the international community that had asked them to accept defeat gracefully. but various pre-election appointments and various deals

assured that karzai was going to be very competitive in this election. he had chosen as his cast of co--- i don't want to say coconspirators but certainly his running mates and his supporters, he had surrounded himself as we know with the number of very unsafery characters. -- unsavory characters. what they brought him was the ability to cut into the opposition's constituency. they also guaranteed him to some extent that very individuals who may lead forces after the election to challenge the results would be in effect neuterized. so we went into this election expecting that indeed this would be a close election. and that despite the loss of

popularity which had his in the polls about a 30%, that was no indication here necessarily of the support that he would get in the election, particularly since it would come down to a choice between karzai and others. now, what did happen in the election? well, there was good news. it was immediately advertised as such. in effect it was the dog that didn't bite. the threat of major disruption of the election by the taliban seemed not to have materialized. kabul did not suffer the kind of violence that many of us, particularly those of us who were in kabul at the time had feared. in fact there seemed to have been two elections, one in kabul where from the best of our ability to judge. the election went rather smoothly. it was by the book.

there was it seemed in the many mom polling stations that i visited there seemed to be professionalism. they seemed to be dedicated to what they were doing. it was rather impressive. however, as reports came filtering in, it wassest that the picture was different elsewhere in the country. that it may have very well been two elections that day. but it wasn't even that clear. because in kabul there had been two bomb attacks which i and my colleagues were totally unaware of. and in fact, across the country there were hundreds of acts of violence associated with the election. none of this was known at the time. because there was a very conscious effort in which the media agreed to participate to keep any announcements, any news

of these -- this violence, to keep it suppressed during the course of the day. of course, the objective here was supposedly not to discourage people from coming out and voting. well, we as observers saw then really was not an accurate picture of what was going on nationally. although what we saw i think was a true picture of what was happening in much of kabul and perhaps to some extent in mazar-sharif, outside the second largest city, kandahar, where we knew there were going to be problems. why is that? because by the very nature of observation you're going to go to those places where you feel secure. you're not going to be visiting those very polling centers which

are considered to be dangerous not only for the voters but for the observers. and so we're not able to obviously place people. we did put people -- we did see people from our team in p.r.t.'s, in helmond, in kandahar. but unfortunately they were unable for the most part to get anywhere near the election centers. they could provide a peripheral security. but it was considered too dangerous and possibly even viewed as interventionary if they had been any closer. so we didn't get to see that. there is a direct relationship is what i'm suggesting between the security of the area in which the polling is taking place and the possibility for

fraud. i might also add that even in the viewing of the balloting we have to appreciate the fact that most eggregious kinds of violations don't occur while the balloting itself is taking place. yes, you may see the kind of what is often referred to as retail fraud where perhaps someone has voted twice, did not get ink on their fingers as they should have had in order to keep them from multiple voting and so on. but these are not the kinds of violations which determine the outcome. the kind that determine are the stuffing of ballot boxes. they are the manipulation of the result totals. they are the whole sale as against retail, the whole sale depositing of party identifications, which are then

counted. they don't involve what particularly i saw after the election was over, the destruction of ballots. and i saw these. which had been thrown out on the road. all of them checked off for one of the opposition candidates. great deal of problem here in making judgements about it. we do know that the turnout was low. whether it was out of intimidation or and think. we knew that it was going to be low. perhaps now we're looking at something a little bit more than 30%. there were 17 million registered voters, many of these unfortunately were probably multiple registrations. probably fewer than 6 million people voted. but there are no census figures.

and in the balloting place there was no registration list. people could vote at any station that they chose to. so it's virtually impossible to make any definitive judgements here about participation except looking at the gross figures. based on anecdotal evidence, it seems that many who were critical of karzai -- and i suggested that the overwhelmingly had seemed that public had lost some degree of faith in him -- it seems that they either didn't vote in the community in which he belongs, they either did not vote or they actually chose to vote for him in preference to dr. abdullah and the others. dr. abdullah being a targik or at least half. karzai did because of his alliances get some cross-board

ethnic support. but nonetheless, ethnicity was a factor. there is hard evidence now of large-scale ballot-box stuffing, destruction of ballots, falsification of tallies. and i think there is going to be much more evidence presented in the next few weeks. there have been more than 1,000 complaints that have been filed by the opposition candidates and by the karzai people themselves. but what is likely to i think trip up the perpetrators of fraud is their own greediness. it's very likely that we're going to best know what occurred on a large scale when we start to see what we believe were the participation figures say in kandahar, somewhere between 5 and 15%. if the results come in which we have not yet for kahn to my

knowledge and we see -- for kandahar and we see 30, 40, 50%, this will be the case for rather massive fraudulent voting. we have here unfortunately an electoral camp complaints commission which has a majority of international members. we have every reason to believe they're going to give the results careful scrutiny. they have the power here to throw out the results from any polling center, from any district, from any province. in fact, i guess you could say they even have the power to throw out a candidate. what they do could very well challenge the complexion of the election, whereby these preliminary results when they're in and they begin their business which is supposed to do over a two-week period, which is hardly enough time to examine more than 1,000 complaints, but

nonetheless they could very well as i say alter the course of this election. whatever that margin of victory may be for any candidate. and they could bring about, therefore, at least a runoff. now finally, what are the consequences here? let there be no doubt that our entire strategy of dealing with the insurgency in afghanistan may be at stake here. a bad election threatens to undermine everything we're trying now to get right in the general barno outlined for us lead us to believe that we are on the right track. without central authority that is perceived popularly as legitimate, it's difficult to see how we can do what general barno suggests we have to do, and that is to restore the trust and the confidence that now has eluded us and the central

government. because we also lost that trust and confidence and we have it to regain. can we expect to partner with the government delegit hawaiied by the very process -- delegitimatized? in the end there is a certain amount of subjectity to this. how much fraud enables you to declare the election unacceptable? how much is too much? the international community is i believe in a very difficult place. because having sanctioned this election, having in effect demanded that it take place, having justified the addition of additional troops because of the security needed for the election, can it accept anything other than a minimally acceptable outcome?

can it afford to challenge the credibility of a future government? this is a very serious issue. initial statements from the independent electoral commission which is government-appointed have been meant to be calming. but also in the news conferences that i attended of theirs had the tone of being dismissive about the reports that were emerging. excuse me. >> tended to be dismissive about the reports that were emerging. our own administration congratulated the people of afghanistan but also left the impression that we were satisfied with the process. reports from the e.u. observers an international democratic

institute, put a favorable gloss on the election, even while admitting that results were not in and the adjudication process had not run its course. aside from the possible embarrassment we have when we make premature judgements like this, we also leave ourselves open to the charge that we in fact favor the status quo, that we had a favorite. finally, can we salvage this election? can we end up here with a credible kabul government? there have been efforts by the united states and others leading up to this election, going on even now i suspect, to create a national unity government, to somehow bring together the leading candidates in a single government. it's highly doubtful that opposition figures, particularly

dr. abdullah, ashraf ghani will agree to such agreement. or the third highest candidate in the county. but more importantly, the afghan people i do not believe will accept a deal that makes their voting irrelevant and that adds to the bitter cynicism that many have toward their own leaders and toward the west. the u.s. and others have feared a second round that will intensify ethnic tensions. but there are already ethnic tensions. i would argue here that a second ballot aford the opportunity to convince the people that the election outcome was not preordained, that it was a -- can be a competitive election. it may happen anyway if karzai fails to gain a majority or if

the complaint commission finds enough miss, particularly in the south, to deny karzai the 50 plus 1% that he needs to avoid this. but a second round offers i think importantly the possibility particularly with greater international involvement than occurred in this first round. to better monitor the process, to put in place procedures which may obviate some of the difficulties in this first round. and in the end, produce someone who is more convincingly a winner. whether it be hamid karzai or abdullah abdullah. thank you. >> ok. thank you, marvin. david isby? >> thank you.

the most important u.s. policy decision in afghanistan is not implementing current policies but rather deciding what should come after them. the hard realities of both the conflict in afghanistan and the politics of the united states underline two sets of facts. first, the situation in afghanistan is not serious and the need for improvement in so many areas, both geographical and functional is so profound that even if all the elements of the current policy is successful, afghanistan cannot be solved in three years. successful implementation of current policies can at best make a down payment on success. at worst, if we fail to implement current policies effectively, we can thrust afghanistan back into civil war, beset by its neighbors' competing ambitions. second, over the next three

years, u.s. politics will have an increasing potential -- to affect afghanistan. the current administration is going to want to have afghanistan in the rear-view mirror, as the current saying goes, by the time they must run for re-election in three years. even the republican opposition or the left wing base of the democratic party is likely to be happy with the course of the conflict in afghanistan at that time. public support for u.s. policies is already de-- declining in the continued absence of a concerted effort to explain them to the electorate. identifying what needs to come after current policies, what can move beyond it, is important for anyone motivated by politics or any other reason who actually cares about success in afghanistan. it will be easy for critics of the current administration to say simply "bring the troops home" which would enable those left to simply recycle their favorite butcher stickers or for

the congress to impose conditions of the u.s. commitment or requirements on the afghan government that may be politically attractive but self-defeating. and let's call it plan b needs to show commitment to afghanistan. the cultural corruption that has grown in afghanistan in recent years is in many ways a symptom of the perceived fundamental weakness of commitment by the united states. that the day will come as it did in the first george bush's administration, that the u.s. would disengage from afghanistan and leave it to be fought over by its neighbors. to many afghan e lets, this has meant that they will -- plan b needs to forge a lasting relationship with the afghans and afghanistan. we need a relationship with afghanistan like that with israel, one that will endure and

one which will not preclude support for neighbors. the afghans made the down payment on this relationship back into the 1980's. that afghans forces died is one of the reasons why all humanity can enjoy a world without soviet communism. plan b needs to go beyond current needed efforts to build reliable afghan security forces. we need to build comfortable capabilities in afghan life. and afghan government, not outsiders from kabul imposed by foreign troops, must be honest, effective, and above all perceived as legitimate in both afghan and islamic -- it means to helping restore afghan islam, which has a power in afghanistan that is hard for outsiders to understand. in the final analysis, peace in afghanistan will foster a growing private sector economy. plan b must take into account the importance of pakistan.

of all the many areas where u.s. policy has fallen short in the years since 2001, none has been more important to afghanistan than the failure to get pakistan to prevent its territory being used as a sanctuary for the insurgency inside afghanistan. pakistan is a friend. the u.s. military presence in afghanistan would not be possible without the lines of communication running through pakistan from the port of karachi. but years of pakistani policy has made possible the insurgency that kills u.s. and coalition troops as well as afghan's. any signs of the u.s.' looking to disengage from afghanistan will lead pakistan to continue to act to prevent afghanistan becoming the site of the threat to its own security. disengagement will not bring peace or renewed cross board a proxy war. plan b must be guided by effective principles, include as many different afghans as

possible, ensure whatever is built created or done, after bans must take ownership and responsibility. no foreigner should do anything in afghanistan if there are confident after bans available. where there are not confident afghans there should be training. policies that can be put before the electorate is likely to be a challenge. plan b needs to show the electorate there is a way forward that can build on current policies. otherwise the real losers will be the people of afghanistan, not the current administration nor the congress. now is the time to start working on plan b for afghanistan. >> thank you, david. and final speaker will be lisa curtis. >> thank you. i'm going to talk about the

election, say a few words about pakistan's role in the region and talk about what success in afghanistan should look like. i'll try to not be restep tiff so forgive me if i am. of course, the u.s. stakes in the election in afghanistan are very high. to help achieve stability in afghanistan and ensure that the country does not again become a safe haven for international terrorists the u.s. has to have a partner in kabul that has credibility with the afghan people. this was a historic election. >> we sought first ever national debates among the candidates on television. these are kinds of political activities that we definitely would not see under taliban rule. i also think it's significant that elections went forward at all and that the people did participate albeit in much lower numbers than we would have

hoped, but they did this in the face of brutal taliban threats and attacks. and i think afghans' determination to pursue a democratic future rather than harsh islamist rule like we saw under the taliban in the late 1990's. the taliban's threats to cut off -- shows their desperation and shows they have nothing to offer the people except violence and intimidation. but this type of blatant intimidation is a risky strategy. and i think it could definitely backfire on the taliban. >> now of course there are two outstanding questions that will have to be resolved before we can say that this election was a success. >> marv has spelled out those issues but let me touch them again. first the question remains was turnout high enough to give

legitimacy to the vote. second will the accusations of fraud be thoroughly investigated or will they also delegit hawaii the vote? -- delegitimatize the vote. it will be up to the afghans to decide whether participation was high enough to reflect their will. on the question of irregularities, i agree with marv of that international community can help out. and that is where the work of the electoral complaints commission becomes very crucial. this as marv explained is an international body that will investigate literally hundreds of allegations of voter fraud over the next three what are some of the scenarios that we should be watching for? well, the preliminary results that will be released next week, you'll have to wait until next week. but even then we won't have an official verdict until mid september. so far, just over 17% of the votes have been counted, which

is about 1 million ballots, which show that karzai has about 42% of the vote and dr. abdullah has about 33% of the vote. and of course, these figures suggest very low turnout which marv already pointed out, somewhere in the range of between 30 and 35% overall and even lower in the south. if karzai were to be declared the winner in the first round, that is if he obtains over 50% of the vote, amidst the serious allegations of vote tampering i think his government would be on very shaky ground. the coalition forces would likely be perceived as supporting what many afghans believe was a sham election, and it would be more difficult to achieve the goal of stability and security in afghanistan. if neither karzai nor abdullah receive the 50% of the vote, then of course a runoff election would be required in mid october. and while this may prolong the

period of uncertainty, thus raising the potential for mortal ban violence and intimidation, it could also bolster the after bans' faith in the democratic process by demonstrating it was truly a competitive campaign. obviously there is no optimal outcome. and i think we were have to tolerate a certain amount of uncertainty for the time being. let me say a few words about pakistan. because obviously what happens in pakistan does impact the region, does impact afghanistan. i would venture to say that we are beginning to see things move in a more positive direction in pakistan with regards to the military's attitude toward fighting the pakistani taliban. there is more clarity among the military leadership as well as the pakistani public about the threat to the country posed by the pakistani taliban than there was just six months ago. and the military has proved it is capable of pushing back the militants from the settled areas

in the northwest parts of the country if it is determined to do so. in just three months, pakistan has been able to oust the pro-taliban forces from the swat valley, which has allowed many of the internally displaced people to begin returning to the region. the military however will have to remain in swat -- remain in swat for some time to keep the taliban at bay. the leader of the pakistani taliban has also given -- it also demonstrates that u.s.-pakistani cooperation can bring benefits for pakistan since messud was responsible for attacks that killed literally hundreds of pakistani citizens over the last 18 months. however, i would just caution that the positive developments of pakistan may not have an immediate or visible impact on the situation in afghanistan. they are certainly helpful in the overall battle against extremism in this part of the

world, and they will help stabilize pakistan. but to quell the insurgency in southern afghanistan particularly something will have to be done about the afghan taliban leadership that currently resides in and around queta in pakistan's province. what i heard from nato commanders in kandahar in late june was that afghan taliban leadership in pakistan continues to direct, fund and coordinate the insurgency in southern afghanistan and that neutralizing this leadership would go a long way in achieving our goals in afghanistan. thus convincing pakistan to cooperate with us fully in afghanistan is necessary to achieving our goals there and remains a fundamental challenge for the obama administration. there's been a lot of talk about a recent abc poll that shows 51% of americans do not believe the war in afghanistan is worth fighting. i believe as general barno

emphasized that what this means is that u.s. leaders need to do a better job of explaining why the war in afghanistan is so fundamental to u.s. national security interests. i think president obama did this on march 27th when he first laid out the new strategy for afghanistan and pakistan. and he did so again last week when he spoke to the veterans of foreign wars. in that speech he said this is not only a war worth fighting, it is in the fundamental defense of the american people. i think president obama and his senior advisors need to repeat this message over and over. and i want to say just something quickly on the statements when we put timelines we have to achieve these objectives in one to two years. this definitely has a negative impact in the region and reverberates very loudly with both afghans and pakistanis. i heard from afghan leaders when i was there in june that such

statements provide encouragement to the taliban and allow them to convince their kadre that they are on the winning side. by the same token, these statements make it more difficult to convince the pakistanis that u.s. will remain committed to the region over the long-term. so put simply, these statements with timelines undermine our own objective notice region. and let me just conclude by spelling out what i think success would look like from an u.s. perspective in afghanistan. success in afghanistan would mean stable government accepted by the majority of the afghan population but not along ethnic lines. success would also mean that those taliban who support international terrorists are not in a position to threaten stability of the government. this of course would require a strong, well-equipped and well-trained afghan army. success in afghanistan does not require the complete elimination

of anyone who is ever associated with the taliban. but it does require that taliban that are allied with al-qaeda and other international terrorists do not have the ability to assert their influence through intimidation of the population. reconciliation at the local level with those fighters who are not ideologically committed to the cause of al-qaeda is certainly possible. there are no signs, however, that the senior leadership of the taliban, mainly located in pakistan, is interested in participating in a normal political process or breaking their ties with al-qaeda. they still believe they can chase the coalition forces out of the country and retake power and institute their harsh islamist rule that acome dates al-qaeda and its agenda. and this is simply an outcome that u.s. cannot afford. thank you. >> thank you, lisa. and at this point i'd like to go to the question and answer part of the program. and i'd like to ask the first

question. give our assistants time to mobilize to bring microphones to the audience. and i would ask you that after this first question as we go to the audience if you could just ask very short questions so that we have time to get as many as possible. and as far as my question goes, i'd like to ask each of the panelists to react to what the obama administration has done thus far. recently the administration's point man on afghanistan, ambassador richard holbrook, ignite admin any fire storm when he kind of dodged a question on what victory in afghanistan would look like. and he said he wasn't sure but he would know it when he would see it. this has led to speculation there may be internal disagreements within the administration about matching means to ends or perhaps different approaches to the resourcing of the war.

and i'd like to ask each of you in your opinion what is the obama administration done right so far? and secondly, where might some course corrections be in order to improve the u.s. policy on afghanistan? general? >> let me start by reprizing my earlier comments that i think the changes in leadership and strategy and in resources now which have played out have been spot on. i mean, those have been exceptional moves, they have been very difficult moves, certainly in a leadership department very tough decisions had to be made. and i think those have contributed to setting conditions for success in afghanistan in a far more comprehensive way than we've seen in years and years. how the resource piece of that ultimately plays out with general mccrystal, ikeen

borery -- is yet to be seen. that deserves great credit at this point. >> marv? >> i agree with ambassador holbrook in trying to avoid defining what victory is certainly. i don't think we ought to use the word "victory." i prefer as general barno has we talk about having some success. there's not going to be a clear-cut military victory certainly, nor is there likely to be a clear-cut political victory. it's going to be as lisa curtis suggested it's going to be essentially that the place becomes stable enough that it both is able to withstand the challenges to its own integrity as well as the concerns that we have in terms of global issues. let me just add one thing. one area where i think that administration may be back on the right track but i think it initially was off the track.

it defined back in the first speech that the president gave, it defined essentially our mission there to protect the homeland and focused heavily on al-qaeda. i believe this is wrong because it did not suggest the wide interests that we have in the region. our stakes in the region go well beyond simply of al-qaeda, the elimination of al-qaeda. that certainly is among them. but we have here the concerns stan may be at issue as well as afghanistan. the issue of nuclear proliferation, the dangers of war between india and pakistan, the contagion of any kind of taliban victory into central asia and into the gulf, the

implications regionally and globally should we have to walk away from afghanistan i think are catastrophic. and the american public has to be told that. and because that's going to be necessary for us to be able to sustain our effort there for the amount of time it's going to take. we ought to have realistic expectations about what we can accomplish. but let's not fool ourselves into believing that if bin laden were killed tomorrow that we had an easy exit from afghanistan. >> dave snide. >> yes. i mean, usually -- david? >> if the answer is send more foreign troops to afghanistan you probably asked the wrong question. that being said there is for the current administration really no option except for increasing the commitment. their trend lines are not going the right way. and the surge need to turn things around. but again, building afghanistan. we're seeing some progress in

afghan security forces. but this is about not just war but about afghan life. so we are going to need simple efforts in things like the economy, civil governance, the judiciary system, even religion. because every mosque on friday in much of afghanistan preaches propoganda for the enemy. so unless we start turning other parts of afghanistan around as well as the security forces, we're not going to get beyond the current situation. >> lisa? >> just real quickly, in terms of what the obama administration has done right, i would say that linking afghanistan and pakistan as issues and viewing it -- the region as a whole is the right approach. that's not to say that afghanistan and pakistan are similar in terms of their socioeconomic development, even their democratic development or institutions. certainly there are differences. but what it is saying is that the threat spans the border. and that is the same.

and that is why it's so important to put the two policies together. i think that was right. i think the focus on protecting the population and drawing back on air strikes as well as artillery strikes that result in civilian casualties is extremely important. i think we were at risk of losing support from the afghan people because of the growing civilian casualties. so i think that is a step in the right direction. and i think obama's decision to send more troops and then deploy them in the south to start disrupting the taliban strongholds there was also the right decision. in terms of what needs to happen moving forward, i would just reiterate the fact that there has to be a clear-cut strategy. and president obama will have to be very clear on that, especially if he does want to send more troops. i think congressional members are going to demand that, that there is a clear-cut strategy in place. and then i think we have to give that strategy time to work.

again, with the one to two-year statements you pick up there's a sense of impatience. and i think we're going to have to get over that impatience if we really want to achieve our objectives. >> yes. i think the taliban has been quoted many times as saying, you know, you have all the clocks but we have all the time. and i think it's really necessary to change that perception if they're going to come to the point where they're going to lay down their arms or at least join some kind of broader government. which i don't see in the cards for the leaders. but there are so many different faxes within the taliban that can be co-opted and bought off and driven away from the top leadership. but anyway, let's open for the audience for questions. right here? >> i'm from the institute for the the study of war. it's really a distinguished panel but my question today is

for general barno. you talked about the taliban strategy. do you get a sense of what their campaign plan is, particularly in the south? is it coherent? is it reactive? is it pro-active? if you could talk about that i guess in as broad detail as you're able to or specific as possible that would be great. thank you. >> not putting any particular intelligence on that, but my own broad assessment would be the strategic operation on a tactical level to taliban, their strategy is run out the clock. at the operational their campaign plan i think is focused on isolating kandahar and maintaining as much control on the population in the south as possible. that's their historic homeland. that's where they began as a movement, well over a decade ago. that has a particular importance to them. so i think from a campaign standpoint that geographically area and population area has

great resonance. at the tactical level, grassroots day-to-day level, i think across the country but particularly in the south plays out their tactical role is to create results on the ground and play into their objectives. that generally means inflicting casualty on the nato forces, the united states, our allies there in driving down that popular support at home. i think they're very good at that. >> in association with that they're also looking to cause the international nato forces to overreact to their activities and thereby create civilian casualties that they can leverage to undermine our support in the afghan population. so i think at a tactical level, those are things that they do on a regular basis that feed their strategic sir, right here? >> a.m. media. how do you evaluate the role nato allies have played

specifically in the election? and what about other countries from the international community? has russia played a constructive role? >> i'm not sure who would -- >> i think that this was an international effort here to support this election. as i mentioned before, there were international observers. the international forces on the ground were participating in providing additional security for the election. i did not, nor have i heard, that russians have played in particular role here. although iran, russia, pakistan all have the capability of being spoilers if they chose. to there's been no evidence at least that i've seen that suggests that they chose that role. >> ok. any other questions? sir right here?

>> yeah. i'm a freelance correspondent. both taliban and -- have moved their headquarters to pakistan. and lisa just mentioned they can fight cemetery war with pakistan army. and also quite an inflammatory war. so i think pakistan is in big trouble. how are we going to deal with this? and both general barno and also david in terms is tough on economy. so we really need to as civilian resources go in there. and where to get the civilian resources. and marvin talked about this completion of the election. and this is really making the

election not legitimate. and also -- how do you three very critical issues? thank you. >> ok. i guess one would be where do you get the civilian people for the surge. does anyone want to -- >> i think that's a valid question. it's easier to deploy troops than find civilians who can go. but i think there are efforts on, and i think what we'll see is the civilians going first to the major minute i wanted to raise here when i was in afghanistan i met with some of the u.n. people. and i think that the united nations assistance mission to afghanistan is starting to play an important coordination role between the afghan government

and the international donors. what we saw a year or two ago was a lot of confusion in terms of different donors doing their own thing. and not really coordinating and not speaking with one voice to the afghan government. i think that's beginning to change, and that u.n. is taking that role of coordination. and in fact, the proposal for the civilian surge was -- there was a lot of input coming from the afghans themselves, which of course is absolutely critical. they have to be leading, be completely involved as partners in these development efforts. and so what i heard when i was there in afghanistan is this is happening. and they are playing a role in developing a strategy for how these civilians technical assistants, agricultural specialists, will be involved in

helping to develop the country. so i think this is actually a positive development. of course, we have uncertainty who will be the next government. but hopefully we'll see those efforts -- the foundation that was laid for these efforts continued with whoever makes up the next government. >> ok. this man here and then this man here. >> thank you. i just returned from afghanist afghanistan. i've been -- general barno talked about trust. and the lack of trust that afghans have for the afghan government. and the message that u.s. government has to relay to its population. the afghans don't know what the americans or the international community is doing in afghanistan. they have totally lost trust. unlike the 2002-2003-2004 period. so having an election as marvin said that if we knew the outcome

why spend another $250 million plus another 150 million spent by the candidates? why did we go? and if the outcome is not the right outcome, then a runoff would not be the solution, would it? >> i think what we're trying to argue here that is that if the first round is widely viewed as discredited for whatever reasons, that there's another opportunity here to demonstrate that democratic process can work. even if it's not working at the kind of level of -- that we would scrutinize elections say in other countries, although here in the united states we have some concerns as well about how our elections are run. now, nobody is suggesting here that a second round is a

panacea. but it does give us i believe an opportunity here with just two candidates in the race to create at least the sense here that one of these candidates honestly did win. it's going to be expensive to have another election. it's going to be -- it's going to be distracting to have another election. but i don't believe -- and i know a number of other people feel the same way -- that leaving the election in with the uncertainty that the current round of election has produced is going to create the kind of legit mass prattly needs. -- ledge is mattie that is needed. it is more the outcome of the election. it is something that is built by a government through its actions

on a more continuous basis and the kind of justice that it brings and the kind of governance that it brings to the public. it's more than just the elections. but the elections are a way of highlighting the issues here about who should govern mains to be seen how they're going to govern. -- >> -- to legit hawaii this. >> it -- legitimatize it. >> the afghan community is not going to vote. i think what is very obvious here that in so many other areas in afghanistan today that afghanistan is not capable of doing things on its own that we hope in the future it will be able to do. but at the moment now it's not able to. >> it's important to note, too,

this was an afghan-led election. it wasn't like the 2004 elections. the afghans ran it, they did everything that was necessary to make it happen. so this is different than in 2004. >> -- in 2004 the afghans participated. and the participation from the afghans it was an afghan election. it took -- you know, we give the candidates two to three months to prepare while our president and the u.s. has at the minimum of two to three years to prepare for that. two to three months was absolutely no, you know, there was no way for them to get prepared for what's happening again. 2004 i believe at the time was run better, it was run by the afghans as well. >> we have a question from this man in the front row. >> good afternoon. i'm with the nation magazine. and david, my readers are getting out there, bringing the

troops home bumper stickers i'll tell you. but in listening to marvin's i thought astonishing account of the election and the legitimacy and fraud problem, my question is about the credibility gap. he touched on the fact that administration has done some happy talk about this election and the painted fingers and how -- if the clock is running out, if the population of the united states is beginning to turn against the war as the polls indicate, if we start telling the truth about this as opposed to the happy talk, do you really think the population of the country is going to become more supportive of a war that seems so hopeless? or more likely to run the other direction? you know, mullen was attacked for saying that it was -- that

the war was deteriorating. and if -- when i write about this panel today for the nation it's going to talk about what marvin just described legitimacy. -- crisis of legitimacy which is the news coming out of this election. so how dowry build general barno's support for a war that's so obviously a catastrophe and deteriorating? >> let me start and maybe turn to marvin on the political end of it. i would take great issue with your character administration of a war that's a catastrophe and deteriorating. andrew mullen was talking in specifics about the security situation, military situation. by inference i think you're suggesting that when things deteriorate the answer is you quit, you leave. that is probably not -- right. understand. both in the u.s. and in afghanistan presumably. and i'll perhaps let marvin talk to the election there since he was just there. i think it goes back to my

fourth point, which was that the leadership in the u.s., the leadership in our -- among our allies in europe have got to recalibrate this discussion with the populations of country as to why we're there. and the why we're there may or may not directly impact on what event's happening in afghanistan right now. and clearly i don't think there's any observers out there, myself included, who don't view the overall trend line as going downward in a negative direction. i described it earlier this year in testimony as a failure trajectory. general mckristol was challenged, ambassador ikeenberry's challenge is to turn it into an upward trajectory fairly soon in the next 18 months or so. there are going to be given additional resources to do that. we haven't seen what the impact of those resources are. so to judge our overall objectives by where we stand exactly right now today in a snapshot is probably not an appropriate way to assess what our prospects for success are.

so i think the application of the new resources, the new strategy and the new leadership, as everyone here has noted on the panel, we have to give them some time to work. we don't simply add this as an instant coffee equation and expect to have the brew done tomorrow morning when we get up at 6:00 a.m. this is going to take some months for certain, probably well into next year by almost all estimations to see this turn around. i don't think we can judge in advance what that result's going to be until we get to that point. ..

>> by our inattention and under resource and of the effort. it is only now that i think we have become fully aware of this and are doing something about it. we still have the ability to have our interests and the afghan interest coincide. i think that is what we have to strive for. what we have to do at all costs, and the soviets found this very quickly, is to be viewed as occupiers. we have to be very careful that the afghan people never think that we are there just for our interests. not there just for our interests, but there for interest that are mutually

interest that we gain from. i think that we have to maintain some optimism and we have to convey to the american public that this is not a lost cause because if it is, not only are the afghans born to suffer terribly, but we will pay a very heavy price. we learned what it was in 1989 to walk away from this part of the region and the price paid. the price will be much greater this time. >> i think we have time for one more question. sir, right here in the middle. >> they do very much. -- think you very much. -- think you very much. we talked about the military and some of the economics, but what is a valid government in afghanistan going to use as an

economic policy? what is the economy based they will be using to rebuild the country? what will they do when the international community cannot pay for their army and police force? >> that is the thing. in the long term, the current afghan security forces are not supportable by afghan resources. that is a long-term problem. in the end, you have to get a working economy and that will be built by nickels and dimes. the world is in a downturn and people are competing for resources. we talk about pipelines. it is corn to have to be built up a little bit of time. it has already been done in cobble -- in kabul.

and majority of the population is in rural afghanistan and the depend on agriculture for their money. an investment has to be made in the agricultural sector. you're dealing with a country that is a poor country and if you have not been there, you have to forget your decadent western idea of poor and replace it with the afghan idea of pork. that is very poor indeed. another thing that is important to the afghans are the mosques. if they can use that to win the hearts and minds of that 75% of rural afghan, we are in great problems. >> i want to thank the audience and i want to thank the panel. [applause]

>> as washington and the nation continue their focus on health care, today we will talk about dealing with the h1n1 1 flu virus. on "newsmakers." and on q&a, dr. john garrett of the va hospital sooner. >> monday, on washington journal, a discussion of recent

town hall meetings with representative gerald conway and we will hear from james cole and dr. john garrett. also, a discussion on recovery efforts in louisiana with paul rainwater. that is at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> tomorrow, three doctors from arlington va. tell personal stories about treating patients and offer their views on health care legislation currently before congress. we will hear from a doctor. >> it is from 1800 to $2,000. the payment is usually medical reimbursement for a mastectomy and it is usually between 600 $5,750. >> also, patients have a

tendency when they have a symptom to go to the internet and try to figure out what is wrong with them. without the medical background and grounding and experience that we have, they always get it wrong. the usually think that they have some horrible disease. if there is anything that i should say, patients should not be trying to make the diagnosis on the internet. bucs join us tomorrow and watch all three doctors from virginia hospital center in arlington, va. as a share their views on health care legislation. that is that a p.m. eastern on c-span. >> coincided supreme court to see the public places. hear directly from the justices and their insight on the court and the building. the supreme court, home to america's highest court. the first sunday in october on

c-span. >> a discussion on senator mitch mcconnell rise in the gop. this is about 45 minutes. host: the book is called the "republican leader: a political biography of senator mitch mcconnell" and john david dyche is joining us. what did you learn about him in researching this book? guest: he has moved along the india logical spectrum from a more moderate to a more conservative position. he likes to use humor in his campaign ads even though he has a reputation as a very hard- hitting campaigner. he often does a with a light, humorous touch. from the very young age he has had his sights set on becoming not only of senator, but an important one. he has achieved that. host: he quotes several reasons for his evolution toward

conservative orthodoxy. he was also influenced by certain other influential leaders. guest: mitch mcconnell came of age under john sherman cooper, from kentucky, a moderate even too liberal. he had opposed goldwater in the republican primaries in 1964. he supported president ford over reagan in 1976. he supported bush over reagan in 1980. once he came to washington, at the same time reagan was being reelected, he saw that conservative ideas could work. the country have moved in a conservative direction. he is an avid reader.

as he read columnist and watched phil gramm who he admires and practice -- in practice, and had an effect. host: he ran against another senator, and then a poll cannot join him ahead by nearly 45 - 50 percentage points. late in the campaign came these ads that have switch to mitch mcconnell for

u.s. senate. host: those were from 1984. kentucky was a democratic state. guest: yes, at that time it was very democratic. the brain behind the production of those went on to found fox news, but who had worked as a campaign consultant. senator mitch mcconnell had asked one of his aides to go with the incumbents voting

record in his attendance record. they found that huddleston had made speeches for money on the same day he had missed votes in the senate. but it cited how they could use that -- they decided public use that in the ad. apparently the ad-maker said he saw hound dogs. they started to air those in the late summer 1984 and turned the tide. huddleston had begun with a huge lead and mitch mcconnell began tightening the race and ultimately won by about 5000 votes. host: one of the lessons in any campaign is be prepared -- been prepared for an opponent. was huddleston badly prepared for mitch mcconnell? guest: yes, and i think you would acknowledge that. he had barely one jefferson

county. -- barely won jefferson county. he was taken a little bit slightly. mitch mcconnell was from louisville, not always an asset. not to be from the big city in kentucky politics. he is not your typical back- slapping, stump orator-type of politician. host: you point out in the book that early in his career he made a couple mistakes. you read that he made his share of mistakes in the first term. he blundered in 1985 by announcing that a large toyota plant was coming to kentucky when he had little to do with the project. it was not a terrific year. it had become painfully clear that he was not ready for the job and it would take considerable time for him to become an effective leader. become an effective leader.

guest: that's right, he had much more to do with the total plant coming to kentucky and senator mcconnell did. he admits that he did overreach in trying to claim credit for that and he admits that he was very much unprepared to become a senator. he had devoted himself almost exclusively to winning the office and have thought very little about what being a center was all about. to his credit, he set about studying that with an incredible discipline and focus that characterizes the rest of his career and has become one of the most effective senators of this generation. >> all of this month, we have been discussing this. books out this summer. yesterday we introduced you to an author with a book out on barney frank.

the phone lines are open. we have a caller from austin, texas. please turn down the volume on your set. caller: hi. i wanted to know a little bit more about your book. what made you write the book about him? guest: well, senator mcconnell has achieved a level of prominence rare for a kentucky senator. he is only the second to lead in the senate. mitch mcconnell is also quite she and turning kentucky into a bonafide two-party state. it had long been a democratic- dominated state. also, most of kentucky's political history has been written from the liberal side of the deal logical perspective. i am a conservative. i thought it would be good to

get political history out there from the right. also, always been a student of politics in government and i loved kentucky. this was a nice confluence of interests. host: a look back at some campaigns as written by john david dyche. the first is back to 1982 when bush was defeated. guest: that is right. mitch mcconnell had to run for reelection in 1990 based on his clout and connections with the first president bush with whom he was very close, but by the time president bush was up for reelection the surge in popularity that of all the first

iraq war had subsided. the country was turning its attention to destic issues on which bill clinton was much more glib. mitch mcconnell had broken with bush on the read my lips, no new taxes' pledge. mitch mcconnell was against the tax increase that bush had supported. president bush was defeated. host: in two dozen for you write this. -- in 2004. guest: in 2004, he had just been

reelected in 2002, jim bunning, his senate colleague was up for reelection and was facing a tough re. the presidential race was going on at the same time with john kerry. his colleague was facing a really tough race. he decided that the weight jim was using tactics the best approach would be to use federal issues into the kentucky senate race and to link bunning's opponent who is now running for the senate again in the race next year, to link him to john kerry. they did television ads late in the race linking him with kerry effectively. there was a gay marriage amendment on the state ballot at the time. the result was that bunning was

able to hold on and win the election in 2004. mitch mcconnell has been the architect of several other races in kentucky, not only jim bunning's but also a house and government race. he helped to change the democratic tide. republicans now compete seriously in nearly every race. host: our guest is john david dyche. we're joined from providence, rhode island by chris. caller: mitch mcconnell has some good positions such as keeping prayer in schools. but the eugenics' agenda and

congress is to kill off the elderly -- this guy heading up, the up his a member of the hastings institute funded by the rockefeller foundation. it is made up of former members of the american eugenics society. they want to kill off the elderly abortion is a population reduction program. host: there is a lot of misinformation in the caller points, but it is part of the overall health care debate. guest: i will respond in two respects. mitch mcconnell has been consistently pro-life throughout his political career. secondly, he is actively resisting the sort of drastic healthcare reform legislation the president obama and the democratic congress are pursuing. he favors [unintelligible]

approach, would like to see it tort reform, individual health- care policy, the purchase cost being deductible the way group expenses are now deductible. he would like to see groups being able to band together to purchase health insurance. he would like to see the ability to buy health insurance across state lines. he is pro-life, always has been. he favors a more incremental approach to health care reform. host: there is this a view which says i think the gop picks the most impulsive person to take the reins, such as the. they fly to get into office. guest: i'm not sure what lies she is referring to buy mitch mcconnell. he pretty much tells the truth about his positions even when they are unpopular. campaign finance reform, for example, is the issue with which

is most closely identified. he has taken a ton of heat in both the kentucky media and the national media for his battles against so-called campaign finance reform legislation. he is pretty straightforward about it. it is the same way he is in raising money. he aggressively raises lots of campaign money and he is pretty open about it. i did not find him to be propulsive personality at all. he is very polite in his debates in the senate, plays by the rules. fellow senators in both parties will tell you that his word is his bond because he knows it is the currenc of successful legislative leadership. host: caller: good morning thank you.

-- good morning. caller: first of all, let me tell you about the caller -- you should watch glenn? so you can answer these crazies. host: my job is not to respond to the callers, but if the misinformation is there i want to make sure viewers know it. caller: welcome getting to your guest there. you know, i do not know if you watched t first segment of this program this morning when you had the doctor on from canada, but the doctor was very [unintelligible] and he is apparently an expert on canadian medicine and services. i guarantee that you can watch mitch mcconnell any morning when they open the senate, and i usually do, watch harry reid and them, and he tears right into

the public option for health care. during that time -- if you don't believe it just go to canada. he goes on fox news and just sits there with some 40 doctors they got. the talk about how bad the canadian medicine is. now the question is, does mitch mcconnell no his absolute stone cold line cannot or does he just like all the time? which is it? anybody would know his line about that if he is watched -- if he watched the for cigna. does he purposely lied all the time? guest: no, i do not think his line and in those statements, but i congratulate the caller on noting one of his most important tactics since he has been republican leader. he does it use his speeches, often his morning business-type

speeches on the senate floor to consistently address an issue. the first to did in this session of congress was the closure of guantanamo. he hit that hard, consistently over a long period of time, and i think have some effect. he is doing the same now on health care reform. i think his office would be happy to provide the caller with several instances of dissatisfaction in canada with the canadian health-care system. the public generally opposes, i think, a canadian-style health care system. it is not to say is in all respects a terrible system which is not the point i think that senator mcconnell is making. i think his point is a little more subtle than that. it is that we can have a much better system than canada if we embark on a series of incremental reforms to address the problems of access and cost

and do not do a radical, unnecessary complete overhaul of what he believes is a very good system. host: lend me ask you about him as a tactician. let me read from the book this -- guest: that is right. that was a very important speech senator mitch mcconnell made. it went largely unnoticed, but is significant. sometimes center mcconnell and anchors or upsets -- senator

mitch mcconnell upsets a movement-type conservative who believes in purging anyone who does not toe a very rigid doctrinal line. senator mitch mcconnell looking at reality does not believe the republican party can succeed that way. he looks back ron reagan and sees a broader coalition. he has campaigned for liberal to moderate republicans in pennsylvania, rhode island, and sometimes takes some heat for it. he is there every day trying to get enough votes and win enough seats to accomplish a generally conservative agenda. this is the way he sees it best to maximize his options. host: some background on a trip

guess, a graduate of harvard law school, also a graduate of center college, the location of one of the previous vice- presidential debate. guest: that is right dick cheney and joe lieberman who debated there. it is a liberal arts college of about 1200 students. it had only a bell 750 when i went there. -- and only and only7 -- it only had about to 750 when i was there. justice scalia, and many others have been awarded honorary degrees. host: it is a pretty part of the country. caller: good morning. i was interested to hear your presentation and background on the history of ideas and how the the history of ideas and how the senator moved from a liberal

i think all of us moved in the '70s because the democrats ran some very mediocre, and convincing candidates and there was the war on poverty and the mediocre time for democrats. i have moved -- i am horrified by what conservatives have done to this country in the last eight years. you ran that ad of mcconnell against his opponent with the blood hounds chasing the fellow and saying to please run on the record. are conservatives honest enough to run on the record for last eight years, putting this country in debt over a war based on lies, the geneva convention,

gitmo,? guest: that ad was not sing to run on the richter. it was criticizing huddleston for not being present when the senate was doing business and instead being across the country collecting money for making speeches. just to clarify. host: in a word, going back to the 2004 campaign, how would you describe the relationship between bunning and mitch mcconnell? guest: it is not good now primarily because senator mitch mcconnell made a cold, rational political calculation that senator bunning would not be the best republican candidate to keep the seat in 2010. center mitch mcconnell likes and respects him very much.

he would be happy to have another republican who voted just likebunning in the sea, however bunning made a number of mistakes in the 2004 campaign. he had not raised the money liking needed to have done a. while mitch mcconnell respect him, his top objective was to win. he put that loyalty ahead of personal lotis. -- he put that loyalty ahead of personal loyalties. that upset some people that he does not put personal loyalties above others. host: john david dyche will be with us until the top of the

hour. reading, pa. is next. caller: good morning, how are you today? yesterday, i watched c-span for about 14 hours. wash the funeral of a giant of american politics -- i watched it a wonder, what mitch mcconnell has proposed? does he have any law? guest: senator mitch mcconnell and senator ted kennedy were surprisingly close. senator mitch mcconnell admired him as a senator very much. he had invited kennedy to louisville to speak. mitch mcconnell's mentor had been a close personal friend with john f. kennedy, had served on the warren commission.

in fact, when kennedy became president, one of the first dinners he had was with senator cooper. there was quite a close personal connection there. politically they could not be much more different. in terms of their personal characteristics they could not be much more different. senator mitch mcconnell is extremely sober. he is not the most gregarious of people. his very circumspect in his dealings. they worked well together, though, because mitch mcconnell is the epitome thea senator. he recognized senator kennedy's effectiveness. host: good morning, florida. caller: i would like to have your guest addressed the nixon

strategy with regard to the republican presence in the south now, which with the exception of nelson and landrieu is nearly completely republican, just as new england is nearly completely democrat. the bottom line is that the tale of kentucky being democratic we have to understand that for many years this out was pixie- =cratic, more conservative than some republicans in the northeast. those in illinois were more moderate, even liberal compared to the dixie-crats in this out. also would dress, with regard to mitch mcconnell a helms, and the others -- -- if he would address it -- they want to have

healthcare, but i have patients who are without medicine, without a roof over their heads. they are seen problem. for the most part they have waited for 70 years for a health care reform bill. these multi-millionaire senators who are in debt to the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies want us to take time. they do not want someone to come between a patient and their doctor. host: i'll stop you there. there is a lot of information there. guest: the question about the southern strategy is a good one. kentucky is pretty much a southern state, more accurately a border state. it was not a dixie-crat type of state. those were elected senators

right as mitch mcconnell had moved to kentucky after having grown up in alabama and georgia. mitch mcconnell grew very pro- civil rights. his first internship with us with a very conservative rep, snyder. mitch mcconnell saba and w the h of martin luther king. he was instrumental in breaking a filibuster that democrats had mounted to hold up the civil- rights act of 1964. he supported a similar piece of legislation as a student at the university of louisville. kentucky had its own civil rights statute that he was 4. he was personally present when president johnson signed the voting rights act of 1965.

he was instrumental in working with democrats concerning the statue of rosa parks at the u.s. capitol. mitch mcconnell does not come from the southern strategy type of environment that has helped the republican party take over there. that is not his pedigree at all. again, on the health care situation, senator mitch mcconnell very much once productive changes in healthcare that would increase access and lower-cost. he thinks that a massive bureaucratic change will do neither. host: this message from twitter -- why was there no gop proposal to reform health care in the past eight years? guest: that is a legitimate criticism. the presidenrepublicans did nots much as they should have.

but the filibuster works both ways. he looked at the situation where president bush tried to reform social security after he was reelected in 2004. the entitlement is in serious trouble. he barnstormed the country in the republicans in the senate could not get a single democrat to work with them. the democrats made a calculation that they would block and blame. that is some defense of the republicans for not getting health care reform ben. overall, though, i think that is a fair criticism. host: "republican leader: a political biography of senator mitch mcconnell" -- mitch mcconnell won in 2008 ñññññ y

needs to stick with mitch. host: his margin of victory last year?

guest: about 6% of bruce lunsford. lunsford was largely self-funded as he is a millionaire. the race tightened for a while as the economy when south, but lunsford like some and the others tried to run against mitch mcconnell in ways that did not make sense. no one has ever successfully made issues like campaign finance reform the turning point in one of these senate races. supporting president bush, even though bush's popularity had declined, supporting president bush was not that much of a liability. senator mitch mcconnell had been extremely effective in bringing home federal project pork ky.

citizens of kentucky thought he was doing a lot of good for the state. they wondered why to turn him not it now that he had achieved of an official status. it looked tight, but senator mitch mcconnell one more comfortably than the naysayers thought. host: the author is a lawyer. he is the author of this new book on mitch mcconnell. wendy is next from tax. caller: good morning. i had a couple of questions. -- she is from texas. caller: i am a republican, but i am american first. you said that republicans tried

to change healthcare, but republicans did not, but you did not stepped in and just do. did you spend a lot of time with the senator to write this book? guest: i did not say that democrats did not want lower costs. i said that senator mitch mcconnell believed the message by which democrats purport to be seeking lower-cost would not be effective. i do not think senator mitch mcconnell would challenge the good faith of democrats on that issue. yes, i spent a good bit of time with the senator. i interviewed him several times, it came to washington a couple of times to observe him. i went to a university of louisville football game with them. that is one of his passions, especially when they are winning. he was very generous with his time. host: the napier freeze this

from the book -- if someone hurdles pebble -- hurl a boulder back. that is one of senator mitch mcconnell maxims. so, if one of his opponents goes up early with a campaign ad, mitch mcconnell goes back with the massive early media buy to make sure his opponent was not on the airwaves alone are not in a way that would really move the new. he definitely believes in an aggressive -- in aggressive campaign tactics. campaign tactics. what i am glad to hear that he is pro-life.

ted kennedy and, unfortunately, he was absolute pro-abortion and did so much against the unborn and he was -- with this health care bill, i am sure you are aware that but did not take care of the abortion issue and that abortion must be explicitly excluded from coverage in the bill or taxpayer funds will be used to pay for abortions. my question is this. i was wondering if you knew whether senator mcconnell had plans to oppose an amendment. stacks -- any plans to oppose the amendment to explicitly exclude abortion? i think it is important to be pro-life and to make a stand. host: this e-mail arrived from

of your at the same time. guest: it is really two separate questions whether the government should be funding abortion is one question, and while i have not asked senator mitch mcconnell specifically his position on the issue the caller raised, i would anticipate he would be where senators enzi and hatch are on that issue. it is hard to find instances where he has varied from a thepro-life -- from the pro-like position. icoming in between a woman and her doctor come no, in most instances, but i believe he would look at each particular situation and not just go on cliche . that

-- as far as coming in between a woman and her doctor, no. even though he has been consistent plely pro-life it has not figured prominently in his campaigns or careers. that is primarily because kentucky, although largely democratic, it is socially conservative. that position prevails in kentucky for the most part out of the urinary. host: welcome to the program from the independent line in dallas. caller: thank you for c-span. see if the guest can confirm my

memory. during the ross perot contract with america is days it was mitch mcconnell who got up and very much opposed the balanced budget amendment. i have learned by listening this morning that apparently senator mitch mcconnell is against campaign finance reform. would you confirm my memory and whether this is true, if mitch mcconnell is a candidate for term limits? guest: i cannot confirm your recollection as to the balanced budget amendment. in fact, i think you are incorrect. senator mitch mcconnell does oppose what is popularly called campaign finance reform. he was the lead plaintiff in the

case with the supreme court challenging the john mccain- feingold law. it was largely a unsuccessful, but he's keeping it up with some surprising allies. i will say this about the contract with america, however. senator mitch mcconnell was not a real gung-ho supporter of all aspects of the contract with america. in particular anything having to do with term limits he opposes. he strongly opposes that. he thought the contract may have over-promised. he thought was a nice way to get attention, but an anti-clinton vote in 1994 that led to the republican takeover of congress. host: the next call in isjoe

from lexington, ky -- the next call is joe. caller: did morning. john david, i was wondering if you would consider senator as more of a political animal, a beltway insider, or as someone who is merely representing the republican party on a national level? guest: a little bit of all. he is very much a political animal, does not have a whole heck of a lot of outside interests other than politics. to some degree he is a beltway insider. he has been the president of the alfalfa club, rather elite washington group that meets once per year. he was married to a cabinet

officer in the bush administration, secretary of labor elaine chao. you don't do that without being a washington insider to some degree. he is the quintessential republican. he thinks what is good for the republican party is generally what is good for the u.s. he is much more republican than a conservative, even though he is conservative and gets high numbers from the conservative rating group. he is more about the two-party system, believes it is a good thing for the u.s. it is one reason he opposes some of the campaign finance reform measures. he thinks it hurts the two-party system. host: the next call is from california. caller: no one has mentioned that ron paul's son is running

for the senate in kentucky. i have been a republican all my life, but i am a real republican. senator mitch mcconnell has been sold, bought and paid for by apac. he is a corporate hack the supported theneo-con war for israel. guest: if everyone had bought and paid for senator mitch mcconnell the people say, he would not be able to get up out of bed in the morning. he is anything but bought and paid for by any group as best as i can tell. he is strongly supported by apac. he has been a strong and steadfast supporter of israel throughout his political career, but he had that position when he first began. it was not something anyone has purchased. yes, paul is running for the

senate in kentucky. he is a very smart guy. he can raise a lot of money. i think senator mitch mcconnell just believe thatgrace who is also running prisons the best chance for republicans holding at sea. he has not endorsed -- for holding that seat. he never has endorsed, but he lets his preference been known in of the was. while i'm sure his very impressed, i think he is making a cold political calculation. come the general collection, trey grason presents the best option to keep the seat. host: here is a message from twitter.

guest: senator mitch mcconnell was instrumental in the expansion of medicare to the prescription drug benefit, but i think that you will also see in his career that the aspects of medicare he has most supported involve private insurance and competition. he was their and the expansion to include the prescription drug benefit. host: good morning, san antonio, texas. caller: how cannot mr. john david dyche assume what someone else is thinking? in all his answers he is assuming what senator mitch mcconnell is thinking.

guest: now what was the question? i have spent five years studying senator mitch mcconnell, have written a book about him, have looked at every piece of legislation he has ever been associated with, have learned as much about him as i could, and yes, and make some assumptions based on their research, upon his many public statements in which he sets forth his position on the issues, and i could be wrong, but i think have a pretty good basis for talking about mitch mcconnell. host: he began his career in jefferson county. guest: his political career was their in louisville in 1977. he beat the incumbent county judge which is actually achieve executive of the county. he used another humorous ad in that race that had a former

throwing a shovelful of lenore ride into the camera. that shocked some blue blood republicans there in louisville, but turned out to be extremely effective. he was reelected barely in 1981. from the moment he was truly running for the senate. now in 2009 he is the longest serving senator from either party in kentucky. caller: i was wondering if you are aware that the health-care package will fund community health care centers which will obviously fund [unintelligible] by a couple of people who were avid followers of adolf hitler. host: we will stop there. we'll ask you what role the senator will play as the health-

care battle resumes next week? guest: you will see him continuing to be on the senate floor early and often opposing the current version of reform. he is out there proposing a more incremental type of reform that would address access and cost. . . . i host: jon david dike is the author of "republican leader." thanks for joining us, please come back again. >> monday on washington journal, a discussion on a recent town hall meetings with a representative gerald connolly. we will have more on health care as we hear from james cole and dr. john garrett, chief of cardiac surgery at va hospitals. also recovery efforts in louisiana with paul when water

-- paul rain water. paul rainwater. >> up next, dr. thomas frieden the director of the centers for disease control. later, a look at the canadian health-care system with former president of the medical association. >> tomorrow, three doctors from virginia hospital center in arlington, va. tell personal stories about treating patients. you'll hear from dr. stephanie [unintelligible] >> the charges anywhere from 1800-$2,000.

it -- a $200-$2,000. it is usually between $650-$750. >> also an internist thompson about patient care. >> patients have an tendency to go to the internet and try to figure out what is wrong with them. without the medical background and grounding experience that we have, they always get it wrong. they usually think they have some horrible disease. if there is the thing that i would say, it is that patients should not be trying to make their diagnoses on the internet. >> join us tomorrow and join all three doctors from virginia hospital center in arlington, va. as they share their personal stories about treating patients and their views on health care legislation. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> go inside the supreme court to see the public places and those of rarely seen spaces.